The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Resignation of Member (Mr Hume)

Mr Speaker: I must inform the Assembly that I have received a letter from Mr John Hume, a Member for Foyle, resigning his seat in the Assembly. Accordingly, and as required by the NorthernIreland Act 1998, I have written to the Chief Electoral Officer to inform him of the vacancy in the Assembly’s membership.

Statutory Instruments: Assembly Resolution Procedures

Mr Speaker: During the debate on the Social Security and Child Support regulations on 27November 2000 the Chairman of the Social Development Committee, MrFredCobain, requested a ruling on whether it is proper to introduce, in a single statutory rule, provisions which are subject to the negative resolution procedure alongside provisions subject to confirmatory procedures. In particular, MrCobain cited a ruling in 1950 by the Speaker of the House of Commons at Westminster. In respect of the ruling by the Westminster Speaker on 15November1950, the situation was significantly different because, as a result of a drafting oversight, an attempt was being made to annul regulations that had already been approved. The statutory instrument in question contained two regulations which had already been approved in draft — the affirmative resolution procedure — and two regulations which were to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The situation raised by MrCobain is of a different order. None of the provisions contained in the Social Security and Child Support regulations have previously been subject to procedures in the Assembly. The Member’s concern was that both confirmatory and negative resolution procedures are required for different aspects of these regulations. While it is not desirable that regulations contain a series of provisions which are subject to differing resolution procedures, it is not improper for a Department to lay down such an instrument, the lower approval requirement being subsumed in the more stringent requirement. It would, however, be improper to combine, in one set of regulations, provisions that are not subject to parliamentary procedures along with provisions that are subject to affirmative, confirmatory or negative resolution procedures.
I hope that the House is assisted with this guidance.

Agriculture: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council agriculture sectoral meeting held on 17 November 2000.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I would like to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in sectoral format, in Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture, County Antrim, on Friday 17 November 2000. The Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, and I attended the meeting. The Government of the Republic of Ireland were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. This report has been approved by Mr Foster and is also made on his behalf.
This was the second meeting of the Council in its agriculture sectoral format, and it dealt with issues relating to enhanced co-operation on agriculture matters. The Council received a report which set out the current position on progressing further collaboration in the area of animal and plant health, research and development. The Council noted the high level of existing co- operation and agreed the approach taken by the two Agriculture Departments in identifying those areas with the greatest potential for further research, collaboration and co-operation.
The Council also approved a proposed timetable for future work, as well as endorsing proposals to formalise liaison arrangements at an official level on animal health matters. It agreed the establishment of a strategic steering group that would co-ordinate animal health policy on the island. The group would replace existing arrangements.
To support the strategic steering group, policy working groups would also be set up to consider animal health policy issues that apply to the whole island. Working groups will be created to explore eight different areas, including bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, animal welfare, and disease surveillance. These groups would be stood down, or new ones formed as requested. The Council also requested the steering group to prepare an initial report on animal health on the island of Ireland for the next agriculture sectoral meeting, with a view to the development of joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border by March 2002.
The Council noted that progress has been made on the pig meat processing study and that the study was now being brought to a conclusion. It is anticipated that a report will be available to the Council at its next meeting. The Council also noted that the reconstituted steering committee on cross-border rural development had held its first meeting on 29 September 2000. The steering committee’s proposed programme of work was endorsed.
Membership of the committee comprises officials from the rural development divisions of the two Departments of Agriculture, representatives from the Special EU Programmes Body, officials from the Council’s joint secretariat and, where appropriate, officials from other Departments and agencies.
Noting the progress made, the Council asked the steering committee to draw up a shortlist of priority issues relevant to the needs of rural communities on which joint demonstrations or pilot models of cross-border actions could be engaged, or identified for priority action; to exchange information on experience and best practice on rural development in both jurisdictions; and to provide a progress report to its next meeting in this sectoral format.
On the issue of less favoured area payments, the Council noted the high level of interaction between the two Departments of Agriculture during the respective negotiations with the EU Commission. In particular, the Council noted the provision for an adequate safety net to protect farmers who may be detrimentally affected under the new arrangements. The Council agreed that such co- operation should be maintained during the implementation of the schemes.
The Council discussed the forthcoming World Trade Organisation (WTO) round, EU enlargement, and the review of the common agricultural policy in the context of Agenda 2000. Ministers agreed that these were extremely important issues for the future of the agriculture industries on the whole island of Ireland and recognised the need for close co-operation to ensure that any outcomes impacted fairly on the agrisectors on both sides of the border and avoided trade distortions between the North and the South.
Ministers further agreed to liaise closely on these issues as the negotiations progressed with the objective of ensuring that the outcome has the least adverse effect on the farming sectors in both parts of the island.
The Council also agreed final recommendations for the budgets of the six implementation bodies for the period 2001-03, as approved by both Finance Ministers. The Council noted that the budgets would now go forward as part of the estimates processes, North and South, for approval by the Assembly and the Dáil respectively.
The Council considered and approved the programme proposals for the URBAN II initiative and noted that these proposals would be submitted to the European Commission as a basis for negotiation and agreement.
I would also like to cover two items that do not fall within my responsibilities but were dealt with in the course of the NSMC agriculture sectoral meeting on 17 November. The Minister of Finance and Personnel touched on these briefly in his statement last week.
First, following approval by the Executive, the NSMC agreed final recommendations for the budgets of the six North/South implementation bodies. Details of the proposed budgets for each body are set out in the table attached to the communiqué. The contributions from North and South will go forward for approval by the Assembly and the Dáil respectively as part of the respective budgets and estimates. Thus the Executive agreed the Northern contributions that will be recommended to the Assembly as part of the revised Budget, which Mr Durkan will introduce later this month. In total the recommendation for expenditure by the bodies in 2001 amounts to £48·8 million. Of this total, the Northern contribution amounts to £11·3 million. The amounts proposed make provision for the continuation and development of the important work of the bodies.
Secondly, the Executive had agreed on 16 November that the URBAN II programme proposals for Northern Ireland should be submitted to the NSMC, and that was concluded at the NSMC sectoral meeting on 17 November. The Council agreed that those proposals should be submitted to the European Commission as a basis for negotiation over the next five months.
The Council agreed that its next meeting in sectoral format would take place in the South in February 2001. The text of the communiqué that was issued following the meeting was agreed. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the comments made by the Minister, but I would like to draw to her attention paragraph 2 of her statement:
"The Council noted the high level of existing co-operation and agreed the approach taken by the two Agriculture Departments in identifying those areas with the greatest potential for further research."
Northern Ireland has a high level of traceability with regard to BSE, as well as good testing strategies. Do we have to sit back and wait for others to catch up, or can we go ahead? What is the situation in Northern Ireland? Our traceability record is second to none, and I know that many other countries lag far behind.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I take it that Mr Savage is referring to the proposals for obtaining low incidence status and a relaxation of the beef ban. I agree that our traceability system is second to none and will form part of a very strong case when we are in a position to go to Europe with the possibility of a successful relaxation of the ban.
As I said in the House last week, my judgement is that it would be foolish to proceed with this case in Europe at the moment. Even today, discussions are ongoing about how further controls and restrictions can be brought in. There is a sense of panic about BSE in Europe. One has only to read our own national press, or indeed the European press, to see that. Given that situation, I know that if I were to proceed immediately with those proposals, people would not listen to us.
The hearing would be based on the panic and emotions that have been aroused in Europe. We will get only one shot at this, and advice from the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr Byrne, and other Ministers in Europe indicates that this is the wrong time for us to go, so I have decided that I would rather wait a while and get it right than go now and get it wrong.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I would like to compliment the Minister on a very comprehensive report on some exciting prospects for the future of agriculture on the island of Ireland. I would like to ask her about provision to set up strategic steering groups for bovine TB and brucellosis. Is she aware that there is great concern among the farming communities at the considerable spread of bovine TB and brucellosis, especially in the south and east of County Down? Has she any information regarding the surveys that took place in County Offaly on this disease eradication programme? Further — and I know this is a delicate area environmentally — has she considered, or would she consider, the introduction of a legislative arrangement for licensing individual badger culls or closing certain badger setts, because the farming community is convinced that the spread of bovine TB is directly related to the number of badgers that have proliferated in the North of Ireland, particularly on the east coast?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not sure that I have any information on the situation in County Offaly, but I will certainly look into it and discuss it with my counterpart in the South. I am aware of the concerns about the role that badgers may play in the spread of brucellosis. As the Member has said, there is a worrying increase in the disease, especially in some border counties. There is evidence to suggest that the badger may play a more significant role in the spread of TB than was previously thought. In 1994 a survey suggested that there may be 38,000 badgers in Northern Ireland with a higher sett density than is the case in GB. Work is currently being undertaken in GB to evaluate the effectiveness of different badger control strategies. We in Northern Ireland will take cognisance of any measures that flow from that work in progress.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I note that £11·3 million is the Northern contribution to the running of these bodies; the Minister revealed that in her statement. Does she accept that her Department could make better use of these resources, particularly on the implementation of the vision group findings when it finally reports in 2001? Does she not agree that this money would be better allocated directly to the Department than to the operation of these bodies? Has she seen or studied the Better Regulation Task Force report? I refer in particular to regulation 1:
"… to ensure that European Commission (EU) Directives properly reflect the interests of British farmers and are practical and enforceable."
Does she believe that the regulations that she is pursuing meet that strategy?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Mr Paisley Jnr has queried the £11·3 million that is being spent on the North/South implementation bodies. The North/South implementation bodies’ roles are to provide services which are beneficial to the people of this island, North and South. The body for which I have responsibility, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), will benefit from the enhancement of co-operation on the loughs, tourism and the development of aquaculture. The £11·3 million that the Member mentions, which is the Northern Ireland contribution, is out of a total budget of £6 billion. I believe that my Department’s contribution to the FCILC is £1·45 billion. That money is well spent on services which will benefit people, North and South. In Northern Ireland we apply regulations set down by Europe. If we do not apply those regulations, we stand to be penalised. Is the Member asking that we not apply the European regulations? It is not clear.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: We should not implement regulations that are a waste of resources. Does the Minister not agree?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Is the Member asking us not to apply these regulations?

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate for Members to to and fro in this manner. If Mr Paisley Jnr would like to clarify the question, I will then call on the Minister to speak.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. There was no lack of clarity in my question; there was a lack of certainty in the answer. The issue is that the task force is a British Government report. Does the Minister agree that no EU regulation should be applied to British farmers here in Northern Ireland that is not practical or enforceable? There are certain things that the Minister has announced today which do not meet that test of being practical and enforceable.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The regulations will apply to British and Irish farmers in Northern Ireland. We do not over- implement any of the regulations. We implement the regulations as set down. In all instances we do our best to make it as simple as possible for farmers to understand the regulations and to comply with them. We assist them in every way possible, and we will continue to do that.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement on the implementation bodies and the fact that we can now move forward. It is good value for money, considering what it can do, and has the possibility of doing, compared to the British Government policies imposed on our farmers down the years.
I would like some assurance that more will be done, particularly in south Armagh, about brucellosis and its cross-border connection. It poses a major threat to the South, an area which is currently clear of brucellosis. However, it may not remain clear because on our side of the border large parts of Armagh are badly affected. Furthermore, there does not appear to be enough money at present to counteract it.
In relation to BSE, are we putting forward the possibility of marketing our food in Europe in the light of the situation that we currently face? Is the message being put forward by the Department that our food is clear and safe? We do not want to be guilty by association, by keeping quiet and not pushing our case.

Ms Brid Rodgers: There is a worrying increase of brucellosis in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border counties. We are concentrating more testing than usual on south Armagh because of the increase there.
With regard to marketing the safety of our beef in Europe, there should be no doubt about the work I have done, and will continue to do, to get the message across to Europe and elsewhere about the high standard of controls in Northern Ireland. The discussions in Europe will bring that out very clearly as people talk about meat-and-bone meal and so forth. It will become clear that we have had those controls in place for some time.
We have some money for marketing, and we will use it. Marketing is an important part of our strategy. The beef quality initiative is also in place.
I have already received some money from the recent allocations round to kick-start that, which will ensure that the quality of our beef is improved. That will help our marketing position. When the time is right the ban will eventually be relaxed. We are working on all fronts, and I assure the Member that everything will be done to ensure that we will be ready to hit the ground running.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for her statement, which seems to reflect some practical work on co-operation to which none but the most recalcitrant Unionist could object. It will certainly prove to be in the interests of the industry, North and South.
Concerning the strategic steering group on animal health, the Minister detailed three areas for work, while referring to exploring eight different areas. Can she tell us about the other five? In particular, can she indicate the priorities, because it is difficult to prioritise eight different matters simultaneously? Is nothing being done about plant health within that work, for example, or brown rot in potatoes?
In relation to the steering committee for cross-border rural development, the Minister’s statement did not include the prospect of greater consultation with Northern Ireland interest groups, which seem to have been left out, given the plethora of agencies and Departments which will be included in the consultation. Can the Minister assure us that the increasing consultation and co-operation North/ South will not rule out these groups?
Finally, when the Minister refers to EU enlargement and the World Trade Organisation, she mentions seeking the "least adverse effect on the farming sectors". Can she please be a little more upbeat and tell us that she is seeking the best outcome, not the least worst?

Ms Brid Rodgers: When I am asked four, five or six questions at one time I find it difficult to follow all of them. I will do my best. If I do not answer them all, perhaps the Member will bear with me.

Mr Speaker: That is the prerogative of the person who is answering, is it not?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I could more easily take the questions one at a time.
The first question was in relation to animal diseases. The Member is quite right. Animal disease is not a respecter of political boundaries. It is important that we take measures to deal with diseases on both sides of the border. The steering group will co-ordinate policy and review the activities of the working groups; it will be the prime advisory group to the Ministerial Council.
Initial working groups have been established to cover eight different policy areas. These are: the import and export of live animals and their products; bovine TB and brucellosis; transmissible spongiform encephalopathy; veterinary medicines; zoonoses and exotic or new diseases; animal welfare; animal health schemes; and disease surveillance. Working groups will be stood down and new groups formed as necessary. Clearly, I expect that the priorities will be discussed and decided by the working groups at any given time.
I am not aware of any brown rot in potatoes in the Republic at the moment, but contingency plans are being examined should that situation arise. As a result of the current enhanced co-operation, that issue will be dealt with.
In relation to the world trade organisation, the new round is widely expected to involve further reductions in domestic agriculture supports and improvements in market access by the lowering of import tariffs. Reduction is expected in export subsidisation, both in quantities of subsidised exports and in the value of export subsidies. That is a vital issue, which I was keen to discuss with my Southern counterpart at the north/south ministerial council.
At present, domestic agriculture support is classified in three ways. It can be trade-distorting, which is being in the amber box; it can be long trade-distorting, which is being in the green box; or it can be potentially trade- distorting, which is being in the blue box.
Most common agricultural policy direct payments are in the blue box. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the Uruguay round, "green box" and "blue box" support are exempt from reduction commitments. However, in the new round, undoubtedly the USA and others will target "blue box" measures. The USA is looking for two categories only — exempt and non-exempt.
It is important that the EU negotiating position, which we have already agreed will look at the multifunctionality of agriculture as opposed to just one aspect of it, will take on board the vital interests of Northern Ireland farmers. There is a convergence of interests between us on the island of Ireland, and a divergence between the interests of farmers in Ireland and those on the other side of the water. We will look for the best outcome, but we have to recognise that there will not be agreement between the Governments of these islands on how to go forward.
My responsibility, as the Minister of Agriculture for the people of Northern Ireland, will be to ensure that in my discussions with Nick Brown and the Ministers across the water, and with Joe Walsh in the South, our interests are not forgotten and will be taken on board. That is what I intend to do, and that is why I will have talks with Nick Brown and Joe Walsh in the near future.

Mr James Leslie: A line in the Minister’s statement caught my eye, as it did the eye of Mr Ford. In the context of EU enlargement, it refers to ensuring
"the least adverse affect on the farming sectors in both parts of the island."
I welcome the realism that that statement contains. Has the Minister any thoughts at this stage on which sectors of the farming industry will be least adversely affected? Is she implying that they will all be adversely affected by enlargement, or does she believe that there will be winners and losers as enlargement evolves?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Given what I have already said about what pressures there will be for change within the World Trade Organisation, and the move away from direct subsidies, it is clear that there will be particular pressures on sections of our farming community that have depended on direct subsidies. Many of those are in the less favoured areas and the regions that need help.
The multifunctionality of agriculture will be to the forefront in the European negotiations. It is difficult to state categorically, but clearly the sectors which are most dependent on direct subsidies will be those most affected by any changes. I am anxious that our voice should be heard in order to protect that section of the farming community.

Mr P J Bradley: I also welcome the Minister’s statement and in particular the reference to the endorsement of proposals to formalise liaison arrangements at official level on animal health matters. I have no doubt that the Minister played a key role in promoting the liaison arrangements. I also note that the Minister had discussions with her counterpart in the South, Mr Joe Walsh, on the pig industry. What have the Government done to support the pig industry? What has happened to the proposed pig restructuring scheme?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As well as the pig welfare compensation scheme last year, I have worked hard to try to help an industry which I recognise has been in severe difficulty.
First, I have examined all suggestions to help the sector financially: for example, in relation to the proposal to pay a subsidy to cover the UK’s higher feed costs. In this context I met with Commissioner Fischler early in the year; however, the Commission rejected my proposal. As the Member is probably aware, we have also examined all indirect ways of helping, for example, by having the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee review the ban on meat and bone meal in pig rations.
Secondly, we would like to have the labelling provisions on pig meat reviewed in order to avoid misleading claims as to national origin. We have also written to public procurement bodies to promote the use of home produce. I am pleased to report that, after many months of negotiation, the European Commission has confirmed that it is content with the outgoers element of the pig restructuring scheme. Some details still need to be sorted out, but NickBrown is expected to make an announcement later today.
The scheme, including the ongoers, is expected to receive formal clearance by the Commission later this month. We hope to be in a position to open the ongoers’ phase in January2001. This will be very good news for the most hard-pressed sector — the pig industry.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Will a farm quality assurance scheme, equal to the rigorous scheme which exists in Northern Ireland, be developed in the Republic of Ireland as a result of liaison between the two Departments? That has serious implications.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The farm quality assurance scheme is a commercial matter to be dealt with by bodies with commercial interests. It is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Departments.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Republic has a lot of catching up to do in improving animal health on both sides of the border. First, what time limit has the Republic set itself for raising animal health standards on this side of the border?
Secondly, on the issue of less favoured area payments, there is mention of a welcome provision of an adequate safety net to protect farmers who may be detrimentally affected under the new arrangements. This will involve a tremendous amount of forward planning. Can the Minister indicate or estimate how many farmers will be deemed to have been detrimentally affected?
Finally, the first part of the statement dealing with the URBAN II community initiative programme proposals for Northern Ireland says
"the Council … noted that these proposals would be submitted to the European Commission".
Later, however, the words "the Council agreed" appear. Can the Minister confirm that these proposals will be forwarded to the European Commission, irrespective of whether the North/South Ministerial Council agrees to them, and that this is a matter for Northern Ireland? While support for the proposals would be welcome, they can be submitted without agreement.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The first part of the question relates to when the Republic of Ireland will play catch-up. That is a matter for the Government of the Republic. Those matters are currently being discussed in conjunction with the Agriculture Council. Member states will deal with them, as set out by the Council.
At present, it is very difficult for me to forecast the impact of the less favoured area payments and the safety-net arrangements. The safety net will lessen the impact significantly. Under the original decision, against which we fought with success, there would have been many losers and few big winners. Under the current arrangements, more than 50% of farmers will lose less than £500, perhaps even less than £100, per year.
I will obtain the exact figures for the Member. As for the proposals on the URBAN II initiative, those were indeed agreed at the North/South Ministerial Council, but the Member will be aware that everything that is agreed there will subsequently be put to both the Dáil and the Assembly for their agreement. Those are some of the checks and balances that were introduced at the time of the agreement to assure people that nothing would be done without their consent.

Mr John Dallat: I also welcome the Minister’s statement. Will she elaborate on the role of the cross-border steering committee on rural development? What areas will it deal with in its programme of work?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The steering committee on cross-border rural development was established following ministerial discussions at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in 1991. The purpose of that steering group was to act as a formal discussion forum and to encourage and oversee projects on cross-border rural development.
The revised terms of reference for the steering group agreed at the North/South Ministerial Council on 26 June reflect the revised role proposed by the Council. Those terms of reference are: to promote maximum co- operation in the implementation of rural development and EU programmes; to exchange information on experience and best practice of rural development in both jurisdictions and to examine the scope for a common approach to the feasibility of developing cross-border area-based strategies and rural development research. As the rural development programme 2000-06 unfolds, it is likely that the following areas will have potential for cross-border co-operation: INTERREG III, Peace II, LEADER+, the Common Chapter of the Structural Funds Plan and the exchange of information on experience and best practice.

Mr Edwin Poots: I noted in a previous answer to one of my Colleagues that the Minister referred to "British and Irish farmers in Northern Ireland". Perhaps she could give us a breakdown; my understanding is that they are all British subjects.
The document says that a report on best practice is being prepared. Was there any discussion on worst practice? In particular, I would like to refer the Minister to the EU directive on the spread of sewage sludge on agricultural land. The Irish Government have not met the obligations laid down by this directive. Bearing in mind the fact that the Environment Minister was in attendance, did the Northern Ireland delegation voice concern that the Irish Republic is spreading sewage sludge containing heavy metals on agricultural land and that this could enter the water systems?

Ms Brid Rodgers: With regard to British and Irish subjects, we now have an agreement that allows people to be what they feel themselves to be, not what others tell them they are. Some farmers consider themselves British; that is their right, which I totally uphold. Others consider themselves Irish; equally, I uphold their right to think of themselves as such.
The answer to Mr Poots’s question is that the matter of sewage sludge was not raised or discussed at our last meeting. However, all those matters can be discussed as our officials continue to meet in the new context of enhanced co-operation.

Transport

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement about a recent meeting with his Scottish counterpart on transport.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on my recent visit to Scotland. I am conscious that comments have been made in the Assembly to the effect that DUP Ministers have not yet met their ministerial counterparts from England, Scotland and Wales. Rather than respond at that time, I thought it was more important to schedule such meetings, as was always my intention, and to report to the Assembly subsequently.
On 28 and 29November I visited Edinburgh to learn about the Scottish approach to public transport, roads, water and sewerage services. I had an opportunity to meet SarahBoyack, the Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, thus enabling me to fulfil a long- standing commitment given by my predecessor Peter Robinson to meet SarahBoyack in February of this year — a meeting that had to be postponed because of the suspension of the devolved arrangements.
During the visit I had discussions with senior transport officials. I met the convenor of Edinburgh City Council’s transport committee and saw at first hand the traffic management and bus priority measures in the city. I also met senior officials from the Scottish Executive responsible for water and sewerage services and the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland, AlanSutherland, who acts as the regulator for the industry.
This was a very useful visit. I was able to examine the arrangements for providing water and sewerage services in Scotland through three publicly owned water authorities and the approach to meeting the funding needs of these services, the methods of direct charging used and the provision for economic and consumer regulation.
Like the Water Service, the water industry in Scotland needs significant investment over the next 15 to 20years. I was extremely interested to hear how the Scottish Executive and the independent regulator planned to address the funding need through a combination of charges and efficiency targets for the three public water authorities. I was particularly interested to learn how the Executive plans to reconcile its social obligations to lower-income customers and customers in rural areas with the need to increase charges.
The discussions on transport ranged widely — from the approach being adopted in Scotland to achieve a sustainable, effective and integrated transport system, to the current thinking on tolls, road-user charging and work-place parking levies, to the intention to introduce free off-peak bus travel for senior citizens and the disabled, and to the measures being taken to lever in private sector investment for roads and public transport. There was also discussion about the scope for improving transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland and improvements to the roads to the main Scottish ports serving Northern Ireland.
During the visit to Edinburgh Council I saw the work that has been undertaken to improve bus services, to develop cycle routes and to give greater priority to buses and pedestrians. I also had a briefing on the development of proposals to introduce congestion charging in the city, with the resources raised being earmarked to improve public transport.
All in all, this very constructive visit strengthened the existing good relationships between my officials and their counterparts in Scotland, created further contacts at a political level and opened up new opportunities to exchange experiences and expertise to the benefit of both Administrations.
In the near future the Scottish experience will be helpful to a number of my departmental actions contained in the draft Programme for Government. As Members will be aware, the Department for Regional Development is undertaking two major change processes — ‘Roads Service: Delivery Excellence’ and ‘Water Service: Moving Forward’. The processes involve a wide-ranging review of the policy and financial context within which both agencies operate and aim to improve the efficiency and value for money with which roads, water and sewerage services are delivered. The Scottish experience is of direct relevance to both these processes and will inform our approach. The Transport (Scotland) Bill that emanated from the Transport White Paper ‘Travel Choices for Scotland’ will be of invaluable assistance as our Transport Bill progresses.
The Scottish experience of concessionary fares will inform our approach to introducing free fares on public transport for older people. I hope our progress will be more significant and rapid than Scottish progress has been. The Scottish approach to delivering its strategic roads review will help inform our strategic planning approach to the key transport corridors in Northern Ireland, details of which will be laid out in ‘Regional Development Strategy’ and its daughter document ‘Regional Transportation Strategy’.
The Scottish approach to modernising railways, through the rail modernisation fund and the rail passenger partnership, will inform our approach to consolidating the rail network over the next threeyears while advancing our thinking on public/private partnerships. Members may also be interested to note that I had a most useful visit to Chiltern Railways the week prior to my Scottish visit, as part of my effort to ensure that we learn from best practice elsewhere.
Subject to diary commitments, I intend to arrange similar visits to my counterpart in Wales, SueEssex, and my counterpart in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, LordMacdonald. I was due to meet with LordMacdonald on 14September, immediately prior to the third UK Local Authority Chairs of Transport conference in Manchester, only to be thwarted by the Minister’s need to deal with the fuel price crisis.
Likewise, I intend to meet with my counterparts in the Republic of Ireland, MaryO’Rourke and NoelDempsey, to discuss transportation matters of mutual interest to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I will inform the Assembly following any such ministerial meetings.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for his statement. I also congratulate him on his series of, albeit belated, meetings with other Ministers and bodies with responsibility for transport, water, and so on. I am sure that the House welcomes this progressive step.
Given that he has met Scottish Ministers and has plans to meet others, how soon will he meet with Mary O’Rourke and NoelDempsey to discuss mutual transportation interests between the North and the South?
Moreover, in relation to the Minister’s Edinburgh visit, the Belfast area has fivemiles of bus lanes compared to 15miles of Greenways in Edinburgh. Does he have any plans to extend the bus lanes in the Belfast area to help combat congestion and improve public transport, which is at a critical juncture, with many members of the public constantly complaining about it?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Chairman of the Regional Development Committee for his questions. First, I will deal with the issue of the belated meeting with Sarah Boyack.
I do not understand the accusation. Arrangements had been made for my predecessor to meet SarahBoyack. The meeting would have gone ahead had the devolved arrangements not been suspended in February, which neither my predecessor nor I can be held responsible for. The meeting with LordMacdonald was scheduled to take place within sixweeks of my becoming Minister, and I was present to meet him. Unfortunately, he could not meet me because of the fuel crisis that occurred on the day of my visit. The meeting with SarahBoyack was rearranged for as soon as was practicable; it took place last week. I hope, therefore, that I have dealt with the allegation of belatedness by showing I am more than anxious to meet with my counterparts.
Mr A Maginness asked about the timescale of my meetings and about my willingness to meet with my counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. I intend to meet them as soon as is possible and practicable. Diary commitments permitting, I would like to have those meetings, and also the meetings with Sue Essex and with LordMacdonald, as soon as possible.
I take the Member’s point about bus lanes. From the Edinburgh meeting it is clear that what would equate to quality bus corridors in Belfast have been successfully in place in Edinburgh for some time. I hope to draw on the success that Edinburgh has had with those bus corridors. The hon Member has quoted some figures, but it should be borne in mind that Edinburgh’s population and transport system are larger than those of Belfast. Members should therefore not be of the opinion that Belfast should be exactly in line, mile for mile, with Edinburgh as regards quality bus routes. However, the principle is there, and I want to ensure as quickly as possible that Belfast commuters get the advantages of successful quality bus corridors that Edinburgh commuters have enjoyed for some time.

Mr Alan McFarland: I am most encouraged to see that the Minister — à la Sinn Féin — is happy to engage in bilateral discussions with Ministers from the Republic of Ireland, despite his refusal to take part in the North/South Ministerial Council. However, I understand that his Department is withholding co-operation from the British-Irish Council sectoral study on transport, even though his Department is the lead body in the United Kingdom on the study. Will he explain the DUP’s hypocrisy in holding back the proper functioning of the British- Irish Council, the key strand three east/west body which cements together all parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his question, despite the inaccurate information behind it. I have no difficulty whatsoever with consultation and the development of good relationships with other jurisdictions. I have not had any difficulty with it in the past, do not have any difficulty now and will not have a difficulty in the future. Mr McFarland correctly said that the DUP is not prepared to go along with the North/South Ministerial Council. However, he raised an issue relating to the British-Irish Council. I have made it very clear to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, both publicly in the Chamber and privately, that I am willing to attend the British-Irish Council if nominated to take the lead in respect of that responsibility. I repeat that willingness today. I do not understand the attempted criticism of my party. It appears to be politically inspired. We are more than willing, and have repeatedly demonstrated our willingness, to take part in genuine co-operative relationships with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland and with the relevant Ministers in the United Kingdom.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Did he discuss improvements to the A75 Stranraer-Carlisle road with his Scottish counterpart? Such improvements would greatly assist those travelling from Larne via Cairnryan or Stranraer on their onward journeys to Carlisle or beyond.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Immediate transport links on either side of the ferry connection were raised. When I spoke to Sarah Boyack, the Scottish Transport Minister, I was concerned with the A75 in particular. There have been many representations and some criticisms over the years regarding the lack of overtaking facilities on the link on the Scottish side. We raised that issue, and I made it clear to Ms Boyack that I would support her in the upgrading of that link. I cannot indicate whether there will be an imminent upgrading. Ms Boyack is aware of the feelings of Northern Ireland commuters.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Scottish experience any relevance to the large amounts of money pressed for here for railways versus roads? People living in rural parts of the Six Counties have no choice but to use cars. Will our budget for roads lose out accordingly?
In relation to the Minister’s own adherence to best practice, does the fact that he does not attend the North/ South Ministerial Council have a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out his functions relative to his counterparts in the South?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am at something of a loss to ascertain the question to which I must respond. However, if there is political criticism of the attitude shown by myself and my party towards the North/South Ministerial Council, I accept it happily. I have made it clear in response to other questions that I am more than happy to bring about and participate in genuine co-operative arrangements between both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and Northern Ireland and Scotland, England and Wales. I do not see how best practice in any way conflicts with my readiness to join in such arrangements with any part of these islands.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s intention to meet Mary O’Rourke and Noel Dempsey, but I should like to give a word of advice to his chauffeur about the dangerous stretch of road between Loughbrickland and Newry, on which he should drive carefully when travelling South to meet them.
Are there any specific measures in place in Scotland that the Minister might consider implementing to alleviate difficulties here? Was the problem of cryptosporidium discussed during his visit?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his question and note his comments about the Loughbrickland stretch of road. On a previous visit of mine to Newry and Mourne District Council, public representatives made their views clear to me on that issue. I am hopeful that we shall be able to secure sufficient funds to complete that road scheme and others.
The issue of cryptosporidium was raised, and I was pleased to hear from the Scottish commissioner about his efficiency programme for the Scottish water authorities. I see considerable merit in working with him to promote consumer interests in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Contact has been initiated between officials from Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they will continue. If issues of considerable benefit arise from the Scottish experience — as I am sure they will — I shall be happy to consider their implementation in Northern Ireland. I shall also make the Member, and others in the House, aware of their nature.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the answers he has given thus far. It is essential that Members cross to Scotland to discuss improvements to roads which will enable us to get to Rangers games much more quickly, and I welcome that development.
Does the Minister agree that his meeting with his Scottish counterpart was able to take place without the unnecessary and expensive apparatus normally associated with meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council? Let us congratulate him on his prudence with departmental resources in that regard. Can he assure us that such good and sensible co-operation will continue? Has there been any indication from the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister of support for this approach to such meetings?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I shall reserve comment on the first part of the question about crossing to certain football matches — perhaps until the end of the season, when we shall know if it is worthwhile.
I shall leave the subject of prudence shown in the funding of such visits for others to judge.
The Deputy First Minister made several critical comments in the House on 16 October 2000 about not meeting ministerial counterparts. I have had no correspondence or communication from the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, either since they were informed of the meeting or subsequent to it.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is interesting that the Minister can meet his counterparts from England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic but finds it difficult to meet his own Executive here. It is also interesting that some Members can talk about Rangers matches and make no reference to the photographs that appeared in yesterday’s newspapers. Those photographs showed Rangers footballers meeting those who have been or who are terrorists, including Mr Stone.
The Minister said that he had discussed the Scottish strategic roads review. The most strategically important road, for those of us living west of the Bann, is the road from Belfast to places west of the Bann and Derry city. And there is the Toome bypass. Has the Minister learned anything from his Scottish experience that would compel him to give us a starting date for the Toome bypass?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will endeavour to respond to each of the issues raised. The Member said something that was either a question or a comment about my willingness to meet my counterparts from England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland and my unwillingness to meet certain individuals in the Executive Committee. I shall make my position clear: if any of the counterparts whom I have met, and am willing to meet, had been guilty of terrorist offences or fronting a fully armed terrorist army, I would not have been willing — and would not be willing — to meet them. To do so would be to give them a veneer of respectability. I have not done that and I will not do that.
The Member also raised the extraneous issue of a newspaper photograph relating to a football match. I imagine that players in football teams, particularly successful football teams, meet hundreds of people and pose for photographs. Players who come from the Netherlands or elsewhere in mainland Europe will be unaware of the background of individuals with whom they are asked to pose. That is a matter for others to comment on.
I repeat what I have said on several occasions, in the Chamber and publicly, on the Toome bypass. I hope to proceed with the Toome bypass and other schemes as quickly as is practicable. To do that, I need resources and funding for the Department for Regional Development. Without that funding, how can I begin, let alone complete, such major road projects? I intend to complete those projects, but I need the resources.

Mr Joe Byrne: Like other Members, I thank the Minister for giving us an update on the meeting with his Scottish counterpart. The road haulage industry in Northern Ireland has long wanted co-operation between the Minister here and the relevant Scottish Minister on the A75, as so much of our road haulage traffic goes through Larne. It has been a difficult issue for a long time. I welcome the Minister’s willingness to meet his counterparts from the Republic. Those of us who live in border areas want to see meaningful co-operation on transport.
How does the Minister envisage that his bilateral arrangements will work, given that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has identified transport as a priority issue? How does he hope to resolve that issue?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member makes a valid point about border areas. In many circumstances where there is a land border between two countries — whether it is in the Nordic countries, the Iberian peninsula, or North America — it makes practical sense to co-operate in the construction and alignment of roads between one country and the adjoining jurisdiction. In that sense I am fully committed to that type of co-operation and co-ordination.
However, the Member raised the issue of transport, and the previous statement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I hope that he and others will understand and recognise that the legal responsibility for transportation issues falls within the remit of the Department for Regional Development. It is that Department which implements policy and puts strategic road networks in place. It remains the responsibility of that Department, and I hope the hon Member and the other hon Members will recognise that reality. I intend to further develop and deepen transportation links with the Republic of Ireland, and with Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister said that there had been discussion about the scope for improving transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Was there any discussion about the imminent movement of Stena Sealink from Belfast to Larne, which would undoubtedly speed up the journey time between Northern Ireland and Scotland by ferry, and about the implications of such a move on roads? Were any concerns expressed by his Scottish counterpart about the need to upgrade the Larne-Belfast road when that move takes place?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Any alteration to Stena Sealink operations is a matter for that company and the respective ports. The Member could not expect me to comment in detail on those discussions.
I have had discussions with the Larne and Belfast ports, and the issue was mentioned briefly during the meeting I had last week with Sarah Boyack. However, its importance is not underestimated. In the next few months the Department hopes to see developments about the implementation of the Stena decision. If the Regional Development Department could take any decisions about the upgrading of roads in order to facilitate smoother and quicker transportation between Northern Ireland and Scotland, I would be happy to examine them.

Mr Derek Hussey: Like Mr Paisley Jnr, who commented on the speed of transport to Glasgow, I welcome the fact that that issue is being addressed — even for myself, who might be travelling on to Leeds.

Mr Speaker: I may be forced to ask all Members to declare an interest with regard to that.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the meeting with Southern Ministers. The Minister will understand the great difficulties concerning the A5/N2 route, which I suspect he might use rather than going down the road through Loughbrickland. I want assurance that that route will be discussed on the occasion of a meeting with Ministers from the Republic of Ireland.
Reference has been made to the rail modernisation fund. We have great difficulty accessing that fund. Are there any plans for the Department to seek direct access to the rail modernisation fund? The Minister discussed with Scottish Ministers the methods of direct charging being used for water. Is there a suggestion that the Northern Ireland Department is seeking to introduce water charges?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member talked about transportation links with Glasgow and then Leeds. However, I hope that he does not travel via that route because it will take him considerably longer. The Member raised a number of issues, and I will try to deal with each of them.
As I understand it, we cannot access money through the rail modernisation fund, but we are examining any way in which leverage can be applied to enable us to receive additional funding and resources for Northern Ireland Railways. Each of them will be examined closely, particularly in the context of the consolidation option put forward by the railway task force, and contained in the transportation strategy, to ensure that Northern Ireland Railways is not only consolidated but developed. Public/ private partnerships are being examined to see whether it is possible to lever in additional funds from that source. I hope that some progress will be possible.
The Member also asked about the A5 and the N2. The route I take will depend on where I start from. If I were to start from Londonderry, I would go by the A5. If I were to start from my office in the Department, I would probably take the route that Mr Bradley referred to, to enable me to see the nature of the road linkage, particularly on this side of the border. That will undoubtedly feature in our discussions, as will the other main linkages between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
The Member also mentioned the issue of water. On a number of occasions I have referred to the significant 30-year underinvestment in Northern Ireland’s water infrastructure. I have said to the Committee for Regional Development that every possible way of raising additional funds must be looked at imaginatively. Any avenue that has not been previously accessed, but is now being considered, will not be accessed until I have spoken to the Committee for Regional Development, to which the hon Member belongs, nor will anything be done without my coming before the Assembly. The short answer is no.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A Cheann Comhairle. Molaim go n-aontaítear an Dara Céim den Bhille (Gnéithe Idirthíortha) Uchtaithe.
Is é príomhchuspóir an Bhille seo ná an Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption a chur i bhfeidhm anseo. Dhaingnigh tríocha tír san iomlán an Coinbhinsiún. Shínigh Rialtais na hÉireann agus na Breataine é ach níor dhaingnigh siad go fóill é. Sa Bhreatain Mhór cuimsíonn an Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 an reachtaíocht leis an Choinbhinsiún a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá an Deisceart ag déanamh machnaimh san am i láthair ar reachtaíocht a thabhairt ar aghaidh a chuirfidh ar a chumas an daingniú a bhaint amach.
Tá cuspóirí Choinbhinsiún na Háige díreach. Is é an chéad chuspóir ná comhaí a bhunú a chinnteoidh nach dtarlóidh uchtuithe idirthíortha ach amháin nuair a rachas siad chun leasa na bpáistí i gceist. Sa dara cás, is é is aidhm don Choinbhinsiún ná córas comhoibrithe a bhunú idir na stáit a shínigh an Coinbhinsiún le cinntiú go gcomhlíonfar na comhaí a leagtar síos ann. Aidhm eile is ea go dtabharfar aitheantas trasna iomlán stáit an Choinbhinsiúin do na huchtuithe a rinneadh de réir an Choinbhinsiúin.
Sna blianta deireanacha mhéadaigh ar an tsuim i bpáistí ón choigrích a uchtú. Níl an líon mór, ach tá sé ag ardú leis. Sa bhliain 1996 fuair ár ngníomhaireachtaí uchtaithe dhá iarratas ó dhaoine ag iarraidh cead páiste ón choigrích a uchtú. Sa bhliain 1999 ba 25 líon na n-iarratas; 28 an líon chun dáta i mbliana. Ní suarach iad na buntáistí a thig le páiste ón choigrích a fháil ó bheith á uchtú ag teaghlach anseo. Agus ní féidir áibhéil a dhéanamh ar áthas pearsanta agus sásamh lánúineacha gan chlann a fhéadann baile maith a thairiscint do pháiste ón choigrích. Is léir go bhféadann mórbhuntáistí a theacht as an uchtú idirthíortha, ach tá sé riachtanach a chinntiú go gcosnaíonn na socruithe atá idir tíortha leas páistí agus go ndaingnítear cearta tuismitheoirí breithe nó cúramóirí eile i dtír dhúchais an pháiste.
Le haird a dhíriú ar fhorálacha an Bhille, leagtar iad seo amach sa Mheabhrán Mínithe agus Airgeadais. Ní dhéanfaidh mé ach breac-chuntas ginearálta ar na príomhghnéithe agus ar na hathruithe a chuirfidh an reachtaíocht úr i bhfeidhm.
Ba chóir domh a aibhsiú nach mbaineann an Bille le huchtuithe intíre, mar a déarfá, nuair a bhíonn cónaí ar na huchtaitheoirí ionchais agus ar an pháiste anseo. Baineann sé le huchtuithe idirthíortha amháin nuair is de náisiúntachtaí éagsúla iad na huchtaitheoirí agus an páiste.
Tugann an Bille aghaidh ar thrí eochair-réimse. Ar dtús, cuireann sé ar chumas mo Roinne rialacháin a dhéanamh ag cur an Choinbhinsiúin i bhfeidhm anseo. Tá téacs ábhartha an Choinbhinsiúin leagtha amach i sceideal an Bhille. Tugann airteagail an Choinbhinsiúin aghaidh ar réimse leathan saincheisteanna. Orthu seo tá ceanglais ar thíortha an Choinbhinsiúin a chinntiú, i ndiaidh machnamh ar an pháiste a shocrú ina thír dhúchais, gurb é an t-uchtú idirthíortha a b’fhearr a rachadh chun sochair don pháiste. Ar cheanglais eile tá an fhreagracht ar thíortha an Choinbhinsiúin a chinntiú gur tugadh gach toiliú riachtanach, lena n-áirítear toiliú thuismitheoirí an pháiste nuair is iomchuí, gur tugadh sin mar ba cheart. Caithfidh toilithe a thabhairt go saor agus chan mar gheall ar dhíolaíocht. Caithfidh mianta agus barúlacha an pháiste a chur san áireamh — ag cuimhneamh ar aois agus tuiscint an pháiste. Cuirtear an chumhacht ar fáil sna rialacháin coir a dhéanamh de neamhchomhlíonadh na rialachán.
Cuirfear na rialacháin uilig a chuireann an Coinbhinsiún i bhfeidhm faoi chomairliúchán agus cuirfear faoi bhráid Choiste Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Sábháilteachta Poiblí an Tionóil iad.
Baineann an dara heochair-réimse a gclúdaíonn an Bille é le soláthar údaráis láir, a bheas bunaithe i mo Roinnse.
Bheadh an t-údarás láir ina phointe teagmhála d’uchtuithe idirthíortha. Go bunúsach, chuirfeadh seo na socruithe riaracháin reatha ar bhonn reachtúil. De réir na socruithe seo, chuirfí tuairiscí a rinne gníomhaireachtaí uchtaithe i gcásanna idirthíortha ar oiriúnacht uchtaitheoirí ionchais chuig an Roinn. Dhéanfaí iad seo a scrúdú agus chuirfí chuig an Roinn Sláinte i Sasana iad a ghníomhódh mar lárionad do gach comhfhreagras le tíortha iasachta i gcásanna uchtaithe idirthíortha.
Baineann an tríú heochair-réimse a gclúdaíonn an Bille é le sraith leasuithe ar an Adoption (NI) Order 1987 atá riachtanach le leas páistí a chosaint agus leis an Choinbhinsiún a chur i bhfeidhm.
Tabharfaidh na leasuithe seo aitheantas láithreach d’uchtuithe Coinbhinsiúin a rinneadh ar an choigrích amhail is dá mba anseo a rinneadh iad, faoi réir comhaí áirithe a cheadódh iarratais ar an Ardchúirt lena neamhniú. Ceanglóidh leasú breise ar iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta cuid dá seirbhísí uchtaithe a dhéanamh den uchtú idirthíortha. Lena chois sin, tá dhá leasú an-tábhachtacha ar Ordú 1987 a chruthóidh coireanna. Coir a ba ea do dhuine páiste a thabhairt isteach go hAlbain, sa Bhreatain Bheag, Sasana nó anseo le huchtú mura gcomhlíonfaí critéir áirithe. Leagfar na critéir seo amach i rialacháin agus is é a gcuspóir ár gcosaint ar ghluaiseacht cheilte páistí le huchtú.
Chruthófar coir bhreise a chiallóidh go mbeidh sé neamhdhleathach ag duine ar bith seachas gníomhaireacht uchtaithe oiriúnacht uchtaitheoirí ionchais a mheasúnú.
Críochnóidh mé m’fhocail tosaigh ag rá go gcreidim go diongbháilte go gcuideoidh an Bille go mór le leas páistí atá bainteach le huchtú idirthíortha. Mar atá luaite agam cheana, níl an líon mór. Mar sin féin, caithfimid a chinntiú go mbíonn caighdeáin arda agus comhaí córa ann le páistí a chosaint agus nach bhfaightear uchtuithe idirthíortha go mícheart. Tá an Bille go hiomlán de réir phrionsabail an UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Cuirfidh sé ar ár gcumas ár mbeart a dhéanamh in éineacht le tíortha eile ag caomhnú caighdeáin arda chosaint na bpáistí.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00) be agreed.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Thirty countries have ratified the Convention. The British and Irish Governments have signed but not yet ratified it. In Great Britain, legislation to give effect to the Convention is contained in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. The South is giving consideration to bringing forward legislation that will enable it to proceed to ratification.
The objectives of the Hague Convention are straightforward. The first objective is to establish safeguards that will ensure that intercountry adoptions take place only where it is in the best interests of the children. The Convention also aims to establish co-operation between the states that are party to it, to ensure that the safeguards set out in it are respected. A further aim is to secure the recognition across all Convention states of adoptions made in accordance with the Convention.
In recent years there has been increased interest in the adoption of children from abroad. The numbers are not high, but they are rising. In 1996 our adoption agencies received only two applications from people seeking approval to adopt a child from abroad. In 1999 the number of applications was 25. The number for this year to date is 28.
The benefits that a child from abroad can obtain through adoption by a family here can be substantial. Equally, the personal happiness and fulfilment of childless couples who are able to provide a good home for a child from abroad cannot be overestimated. Intercountry adoption can yield enormous benefits, but it is necessary to ensure that arrangements between countries protect the welfare of children and secure the rights of birth parents or other carers in the child’s country of origin.
The provisions of the Bill are set out in detail in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I will outline the main features of the new legislation and the changes that it will bring about. The Bill is not concerned with domestic adoptions, where both the prospective adopters and the child live here. It is concerned with intercountry adoptions, where the adopters and child are of different nationalities.
The Bill addresses three key areas. First, it enables the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations giving effect to the Convention in Northern Ireland. The relevant text of the Convention is set out in the schedule to the Bill. It addresses a wide range of issues. It requires Convention countries to consider a placement for the child in the state of origin and ensure that intercountry adoption is in the best interests of the child.
Convention countries are responsible for ensuring that necessary consents have been properly given, including the child’s parents’ consent, where necessary. Consents must be freely given and not induced by payment. Consideration must also have been given to the child’s wishes and opinions, having regard to the child’s age and understanding.
Power is provided to create offences in relation to non-compliance with the regulations. All the regulations giving effect to the Convention will be subject to consultation and will be laid before the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and the Assembly.
Secondly, the Bill provides for a central authority, based in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to act as a liaison point for intercountry adoptions. Essentially, that would put existing administrative arrangements on a statutory footing. Under such arrangements, reports on the suitability of prospective adopters in intercountry cases, carried out by adoption agencies, would be passed to the Department. They would then be checked and passed to the Department of Health in England, which would act as the focal point for all correspondence with foreign countries in intercountry adoption cases.
12.00
The Bill also includes a series of amendments to the Adoption(NorthernIreland)Order1987 that are required to protect the welfare of children and give effect to the Convention. The amendments will allow Convention adoptions made abroad to be recognised automatically as though they had been made here, subject to certain safeguards that will allow applications to the High Court for annulment. A further amendment will require health and social services trusts to include intercountry adoption as part of their adoption services.
Also included are two important amendments to the Adoption(NorthernIreland)Order 1987 that will create offences. It will be an offence for anyone to bring a child into England, Scotland, Wales or this country for the purpose of adoption unless certain criteria are met. Those criteria will be set out in regulations, and the objective is to safeguard against covert movement of children for adoption. The Bill will also render it illegal for anyone, other than an adoption agency, to assess the suitability of prospective adopters.
The Bill will make a valuable contribution to the welfare of children involved in intercountry adoption. The numbers involved are small, but we must ensure that high standards and proper safeguards are in place to protect children and ensure that intercountry adoptions are not improperly obtained. The Bill is fully in accord with the principles of the UnitedNationsConvention on the Rights of the Child and will enable us to play our part, alongside other countries, in upholding high standards for the protection of children.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill, and I know that Committee members look forward to the Committee Stage. I will keep my comments brief, because it is important that the Committee be given the opportunity to consider the Bill in detail.
As the Minister said, the Bill will implement in NorthernIreland the 1993Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. That will be done mainly through the introduction of regulation-making powers, enabling the Department to set minimum standards relating to the process of intercountry adoption, in the best interests of the children concerned.
The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee held consultations on the policy aims in the Bill. We received almost 30responses from health and social services councils, boards, trusts, and voluntary and professional bodies. The vast majority of responses welcomed the Bill. It ensures that the best interests of the children are paramount, clarifies the process, and places existing arrangements on a statutory basis, allowing only registered adoption societies to be involved. The respondents raised other important issues, which Committee members will consider in detail in Committee. We will come back with amendments at Consideration Stage, if necessary.

Rev Robert Coulter: I welcome the continued progress of the Bill, which will bring regulations into line with the rest of the UnitedKingdom. The Bill will ensure that adoption of the kind mentioned in the Bill takes place only when it is in the best interests of the child. It is good that safeguards will be put in place. Can the Minister explain what arrangements will be made to ensure that central authorities co-operate effectively with each other in these matters?

Mr Paul Berry: I am glad that this matter has been brought before the House today. I give the Bill a cautious welcome, although I have some concerns, which I hope the Department will address.
First, the Bill will create two new offences. Principally, it will make it an offence for anyone other than an adoption agency to assess the suitability of prospective adopters of children from overseas. It is nice to know that civil servants from the Department love to look after their own interests by criminalising everyone but themselves.
Part of the problem is that there is no corresponding penalty upon such agencies when they make a mistake and, worse, when they become infected by political correctness. That is when we all discover that these people are really a law unto themselves. Irrespective of what other legislation says on this point, there ought to be some reference to appeal provisions when adopters are treated either wrongly or unfairly. Instead of thinking only of making criminals, they should balance that by considering their own faults as well.
I welcome, however, the exclusion mentioned in clause 12, page 7. Another area that concerns me is the excessive emphasis on individualism. The Department and its draftsmen do not appear to have thought through the crucial point that is made on page 9 — namely, that
"the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment".
Those drafting this legislation did not give enough credence to this point made in the Convention.
I trust, however, that the issues that I have raised will be addressed. As the Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has said, we look forward to the Committee Stage.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We generally welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. It implements the Hague Convention, which ensures that the best interests of children are paramount. That must be welcomed wholeheartedly.
There are concerns, however. Our concerns are that there should be more consultation with interested groups, such as the Children’s Law Centre. There is also need for clarification on the issue of the consent of the birth parents, in particular in relation to children who have been abandoned. Will the Bill preclude adoption in such cases?
I am also concerned about the issue of home study charges, because this may preclude people of limited means. The impact of the Bill on equality of opportunity under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should, therefore, be reconsidered.
Having said that, a Cheann Comhairle, I reiterate that we welcome the Second Stage of the Bill, and reserve further comment.

Prof Monica McWilliams: It came to my attention that this legislation is the result of a private Member’s Bill at Westminster, introduced by a Liberal Democrat Member. I therefore take some heart that private Members’ Bills can result in such important legislation. No doubt we all look forward to that happening here eventually.
The role of the Government in this is critical. When I was conducting some background work, I visited the Family Care Society, which had recently attended a conference on intercountry adoption. It noted that in the first year after the fall of Ceaucescu in Romania some 7,000 children had disappeared from that country; it had been plundered for children. That was at a time when there were no regulations on intercountry adoption. Clearly, we have had to learn a great deal from that, because many of those children are now growing up in Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
I also gathered information from a report by the Health Committee at Westminster entitled ‘The Welfare of Former British Child Migrants’. It pointed up the disastrous effect that migration to Australia and New Zealand had on children from Northern Ireland and Britain. Between 7,000 and 10,000 children were sent from Britain and Northern Ireland, some 500 from Northern Ireland.
We learn from a recent report by the Health Committee at Westminster that in the initial years, when children are growing up, the fact that they have been adopted does not have terrible implications for them. However, as they turn into adolescents and adults they desperately seek information. That information was not available to those children. We are now trying to put information in place about where they came from, why they were sent for adoption and how they can maintain contact with their birth parents. The absence of regulations and information has left a devastating trail of damage.
It is right that we ratify the 1993 Hague Convention. It never ceases to amaze me how many times Governments sign conventions and then do not ratify or enforce them. It is good to see a private Member’s Bill seeking to ensure that this part of the Hague Convention will consequently be ratified.
Intercountry adoption began as a humanitarian act after the first and second world wars. Many people put themselves forward to adopt on an intercountry basis because the children were orphaned. Traditionally, intercountry adoption in Britain has mainly been through Indian and Pakistani families maintaining links with the home countries. Today there are very different reasons.
I am very concerned about a trade in children and in particular the consequent scant regard for children’s rights. The potential is there for trafficking, and it has clearly been the case that with money can buy children from the less well off, particularly in Eastern European countries. This legislation should ensure that children adopted from overseas receive the same standard of care as those adopted in our own country.
In Britain, between 4% and 14% of children in care are put forward for adoption. However, in Northern Ireland the percentage is only 2%, lower than any local authority in England. The Government review of adoption refers to those children who are currently in care and argues that Northern Ireland needs to raise its adoption rate to 10%. Why am I referring to our home adoptions? Currently only 60 to 80 children in Northern Ireland are being put up for adoption, and there are resource implications because of this legislation.
In ‘Community Care’, Ruth Winchester states:
"There is little doubt that the services provided to deal with inter-country adoption applications diverts efforts that would otherwise be spent on recruiting and assessing adopters for children in the UK. The vast majority of inter-country adopters would also make excellent adopters of children here, and in that respect they are a loss to children in this country."
The resource implication is that more and more time will be taken up if, as the Minister reports, there are now 25 to 30 cases per year, up from a small base of two per year as recently as 1996. If resources are being diverted to conducting detailed and rigorous reports on intercountry adoptions, are they eating into the resources for local adoptions? That case has been made by organisations that deal with local adoptions. I hope that it will not be at the expense of local child-care services and that we will not be taking money from children in care, who need these reports to be thorough and rigorous. We have regulations about local adoptions.
Follow-up services also need to be put in place. If the central authority is in England, to what extent are resources being put aside in Northern Ireland to — as the Rev Robert Coulter pointed out — not only liaise with that authority but also deal with pre-adoption information, the database needed for tracing details and the post- counselling and post-adoption services that are required? How much of that will take place locally? What will be the relationship between our authority, the central authority and local non-Government organisations?
I refer in particular to the work done by the Family Care Society, which gives post-adoption support for the child, the adoptive family and the birth family. Who gives that support when it is an intercountry adoption? I am glad to hear that the consent principle has been taken as strongly as it has. It is undoubtedly the case that years later, people realise the implications of what has happened and need a great deal of counselling. The counselling provided to support former Australian child migrants and their extended families is a case in point. I would like to see the Bill addressing the required support for all those involved in intercountry adoptions. There are implications when you take a child out of its birth country. Ethnic identity has been flagged up and a child’s identity throughout its adult life. If the number of children coming into a country such as Northern Ireland is due to increase, a great deal of support must be made available.
The best interests of the child should be at the heart of intercountry adoptions. That has not been the case to date. I am glad that offences are now stipulated in this legislation. Private agencies have entered this field, clearly because money is involved. Those who have a great deal of money have spent that money on finding individuals and agencies which have set themselves up to do nothing except this kind of trade. Industry, business and trade are now regulated in a global market, and trading in children must be regulated in the same way, not just in the United States but also in Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is important that countries adhere strictly to these regulations. The Hague Convention was supposed to be practised in principle, but the regulations were so wide open, there were so many loopholes, that people could bypass them. Following these regulations should involve no profit. People have been bypassing the current regulations by charging inflated fees; this should not be allowed, nor should expenses for the production of reports by private agencies.
Arrangements should cover a comprehensive range of aftercare services in the receiving country. The Committee will look at how the Bill speaks to aftercare services and the support that should be available. If anything has been learned from the Australian and New Zealand experience, it is that years and years of trauma will follow, and a great deal of counselling and therapy will be required if those services are not available.

Mr John Fee: If the purpose of this Bill — as explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum — is to implement the provisions of the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, then it is failing miserably. I ask the Minister and the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee to look carefully at some of the provisions of the Bill.
I see three immediate and glaring problems. First, article 35 of the Hague Convention says
"The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall act expeditiously in the process of adoption."
The Convention also says
"A Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention upon such authorities."
That is a very laudable suggestion and objective.
Clause 2(1) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill says
"The functions of the Central Authority named in the Convention, shall be discharged in relation to Northern Ireland by the Department."
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be the central authority to discharge responsibilities in relation to intercountry adoption. However, clause 7, by its amendment of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 delegates that authority to the 19 health and social services trusts across Northern Ireland. Therefore we will have 19 authorities dealing with an average of 25 to 30 intercountry adoptions every year. I do not know how that can possibly fulfil the requirement of article 35 of the Hague Convention, which states that these adoptions should be "expeditiously" dealt with.
Current experience shows that it takes months, if not years, for an overseas adoption. These adoptions are more complicated, more costly and more emotionally fraught than domestic adoptions. This Bill will not relieve those pressures in any way.
Ms McWilliams referred to the trade in children. I am also concerned about the costs of these adoptions. The Convention says that only costs and expenses — including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption — may be charged or paid. In my experience, this is the only service provided by health and social services trusts where every penny of administration costs, including mileage, light, heat, power and paper, is calculated. Those charges are passed on to the potential adoptees by the health trusts. That is over and above any specialist counselling they may employ or legal expenses that result from the adoption procedures, both in other countries and in this jurisdiction.
Finally, article 17 of the Convention says that an adoption may go ahead if
"it has been determined, in accordance with Article 5, that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt and that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside permanently in the receiving State."
In our circumstances, the Home Office must have given prior approval to the entry of the child, presumably by way of an entry visa, and to permanent residency. That particular area of intercountry adoption has been fraught for years. There is no clear relationship between the Department here and the Home Office officials who deal with the applications for entry and permanent residency. Unless that relationship is sorted out, we will continue to provide a very poor service for quite a small number of people who are paying quite a lot of money for the benefit of establishing a good home environment for themselves and a safe home environment for these children.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I broadly welcome this Bill. It is commendable that its purpose is to prevent the sale or abduction of, or trafficking in, children. While I agree with the tenet of the Bill, and that there is a focus on the needs and rights of the child, I must press that the child’s interests be of paramount importance in all regards and in all aspects of the legislation.
I have reservations on several issues, some of which have already been mentioned. What is the relationship between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety here and the central authority in England, as stated in clause2? There is concern that unless the role of the Department of Health is clearly defined, prospective adoptive parents here could find themselves caught between the Northern Ireland authorities and those in England.
How does the Department intend to ensure that the safeguards outlined in clauses4and5 are implemented? That needs to be clarified. Are those roles to be taken on by current domestic adoption agencies? Will there be additional resources to cover the costs?
There is also concern regarding the charges for overseas home studies, as mentioned by John Kelly. One problem is the difference in charges between one trust board and another. There is potential for inequalities in the service, depending on which trust board area prospective adoptive parents live in. This in turn could have a negative effect on people on lower incomes.
John Kelly mentioned abandoned children whose parents can be neither found nor contacted. Will those children come under the protection of the adoption agencies? If so, will they have similar opportunities to be considered for intercountry adoption?
I question what precise measures will be taken to ensure that there is no improper financial gain in connection with intercountry adoption. Like many other procedures, it could be open to abuse. While I have the greatest respect for prospective adoptive parents — and they must also be protected — we need to safeguard the rights of the children and their natural parents. Is there any provision for these children to have access to information about their origins, should they wish it? Perhaps the Minister should also consider ways of providing a general evaluation report on the service.
Overall, I welcome the Bill, because it provides the opportunity to regulate adoptions from abroad and, as MsMcWilliams stated, those adoptions overseas from Northern Ireland. My main concern, however, is the possibility of an increase in the bureaucratic process which would significantly increase the cost of adopting a child from abroad. There is also medical costs and the cost of essential post-placement support. Where will the funding come from?
The importance of the Bill is to place the arrangements for intercountry adoption on a statutory basis. That in itself must be seen as a positive step.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le Teachtaí as ucht a suime sa Bhille. Thóg Teachtaí roinnt ceisteanna agus luaigh siad pointí suimiúla. Féachfaidh mé le plé leis an iomlán acu.
I thank Members for their interest in the Bill. Several questions were raised, and interesting points were made. I will try to deal with all of them.
MsMcWilliams asked to what extent resources were being put aside, for example, for post-counselling services. The Bill does not imply that there will be more intercountry adoptions, although clearly the number is rising. The number is still small, but if there is a substantial rise, we will need to consider more resources for counselling.
There were questions from the Rev Robert Coulter and John Fee about arrangements to ensure that central authorities co-operate. Arrangements already exist to ensure a high level of co-operation between my Department and the Department of Health. The Bill will build on this.
John Fee spoke about delegation. It is very clear that this is not a delegation of central authority. Rather, we are allowing trusts to carry out some of the essential work which they are best placed to do — namely, information gathering and other specific functions. The central authority will remain in the Department.
Ms McWilliams asked if intercountry adoption would prejudice the adoption of local children by taking resources away from the adoption services here. Clearly, those working here must see this as part and parcel of their work. However, most of those applying to adopt a child are childless couples who have a clear view about the type of child they wish to adopt. The preferences of childless couples vary, but in general prospective adopters are looking for a child who has been voluntarily placed for adoption. Usually, those seeking intercountry adoption are looking for a newborn child or a child without health problems or a difficult family history, and so on. Very few children born here who become available for adoption fall into the categories most sought by prospective adopters.
It is true that fewer than 3% of children cared for by social services are adopted. However, the social services inspectorate is currently carrying out a review of our adoption services and we will be looking at ways to make adoption a more realistic option for children in care. It is right that we facilitate intercountry adoptions. At the same time we must ensure that the welfare of children put up for adoption here is guaranteed.
Ms Lewsley, among others, asked what additional resources would be made available. The Bill will not have significant resource implications because central authority functions are already carried out in the Department, and trusts already carry out work on intercountry adoption cases by assessing the suitability of prospective adopters.
Ms McWilliams asked whether other Convention countries would adhere to the legislative requirements. The purpose of the Convention is to ensure that high standards are maintained, and the operation of the Convention will be subject to review. We were also asked to be alert to difficulties in the framing of regulations to ensure their effectiveness, and we have done so. The regulations will be subject to consultation and will be laid before both the Assembly and the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee.
Mr Fee asked what would be done in order to expedite these points. A project has been established to review the legal and social work processes and timescales relating to the adoption of children. This report is expected in September2001.
Ms McWilliams also queried the relationship between voluntary agencies and trusts. Both trusts and voluntary adoption societies will be able to process intercountry adoptions. Voluntary agencies will have to be registered to conduct intercountry adoptions. They will be able to apply for registration under the legislation.
Ms Lewsley asked what measures are to be taken to prevent improper financial gain. The Convention makes it clear that any state which signs the Convention must ensure that there is financial propriety at all times.
Mr Berry asked about what he perceives as too much political correctness. Adoption agencies here have a statutory duty to ensure that people who apply to adopt are, in every respect, suitable to care for a child. Agencies are committed to doing this in a sensitive way, and, where necessary, they help prospective adopters to assess their needs and those of the children to ensure that they are compatible. It is unfair to suggest that officials are self-serving or that this work is carried out in a way which benefits anyone other than the children.
Mr Berry asked why there is no penalty on agencies. Decisions relating to adoption are ultimately the responsibility of the courts. The question of mistakes made by adoption agencies is a difficult one, but all agencies here work to high ethical standards, which are maintained by the way in which the regulations are implemented.
A number of questions related to the need for the consent of both parents. The Hague Convention contains extensive provisions on the issue of consent. Consent must not be induced by payment — it must be given freely. The Convention includes provision for counselling to be given, as necessary, to those whose consent is required. Specific provision is also made for cases in which it is not possible to obtain parental consent. For example, where children have been abandoned, the Convention recognises that consent cannot remain a requirement. I can tell John Kelly that this applies in all cases.
On the question of whether there should have been more consultation on the Bill, there was consultation on adoption in 1996. The safeguards set out in the Convention were welcomed by boards, trusts and others. The consultation that was carried out by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee also indicated similar widespread support, and Dr Hendron kindly informed us of that this morning.
In response to John Kelly’s question about whether arrangements should be made to clarify charges, trusts have discretion on charges for carrying out work on adoptions, including intercountry adoptions. During implementation, any inconsistencies in charges between trusts in board areas will be addressed. Although trusts have discretion, any charges must reflect the expenses which have been reasonably incurred in connection with an adoption.
I hope that I have fully covered the questions raised and the points made in this useful debate. My officials will also study the Hansard report of the debate, and if any question has not been dealt with, I will respond in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00) be agreed.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill: Final Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA 8/99) do now pass.
I will summarise the main provision and effects of the Bill. The Bill proposes three specific amendments to the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, all of which deal with the verification of weighing and measuring equipment in use for trade. Verification is the examination and testing of weighing and measuring equipment before it is allowed to be used for trade transactions. The equipment includes such items as butchers’ scales and petrol pumps. Currently a qualified weights and measures inspector carries out this examination. The three proposed measures which are of a deregulatory nature are as follows.
First, self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment will permit approved manufacturers, installers and repairers to conduct their own testing in order pass as fit for use for trade and to stamp weighing and measuring equipment. Secondly, testing by official European economic area testers will allow an inspector of weights and measures to accept test reports from third-party testers established in the European economic area as part of the process of the verification of equipment. Thirdly, applying the prescribed stamp prior to testing the equipment will enable those manufacturers of weighing or measuring equipment who are approved verifiers to incorporate the stamp to be applied to the equipment into the manufacturing process.
These measures have the potential to reduce burdens on business without diminishing the level of consumer protection currently available in this area. The measures will have the potential to increase flexibility, as the verification process will no longer be restricted to weights and measures inspectors. The changes will increase choice and competition, as new players will have the opportunity of coming into the market. Reduced costs will also result, as manufacturers will be able to incorporate these processes into their systems.
At the same time, the proposed self-verification process retains current consumer protection by ensuring that equipment will meet the same prescribed requirements as an inspector would currently apply when verifying equipment. The requirements for testing are not altered and consequently will not facilitate the use of inaccurate equipment for trade.
Competent persons will conduct testing and verification of the equipment. The specified requirement for approved verifiers and the ongoing surveillance of their quality systems by weights and measures inspectors will ensure confidence in the integrity of these processes and of the officers charged with them.
In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee was satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to protect consumers from malpractice. In agreeing the provisions, Members will ensure that parity is maintained between the legislative provisions on weights and measures in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland. I am also pleased to see a European dimension to the proposals insofar as they will allow equipment manufactured and self-verified in other European Community countries to be used in the United Kingdom.
There is, therefore, a free trade element to the proposals, which, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I naturally welcome.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the chairman and members of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, who carried out detailed, clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I would also like to thank the Committee for affording my officials and me the opportunity to give evidence to it during that scrutiny process.

Mr Jim Wells: When this measure first appeared before the House I was in the Chamber and a rather scurrilous journalist alleged that I was wearing a wig. I assure the House that every follicle, every lock, every strand is my own and that there is not a David Ervine frantically trying to get out. It is all mine. However, the weights and measures people are welcome to come and check, just in case.
This is a non-contentious Bill. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee examined it in considerable detail, and we are happy that it brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom and with European legislation. We were concerned that consumers should continue to have confidence in the product they were buying. Was it correctly measured? Could they have faith in what they were being given? We are content that this Bill will in no way endanger that and that the consumer can indeed have confidence.
I suspect that we need to have that confidence in Northern Ireland in particular because many incoming goods may not originate from the most legitimate of sources. For instance, if weights and measures personnel were to inspect Jonesborough market or Nutt’s Corner market on a Sunday afternoon and implement this legislation effectively, one or two people would be found wanting.
Apart from that, we are more than happy that this is a non-contentious issue and we congratulate the Minister and the Department for bringing it forward and for its speedy implementation. I am confident that this will be the third Bill that the Assembly has managed to pass to Royal Assent stage in a short time period.

Sir Reg Empey: I want to confirm the point made by the Member for South Down (Mr Wells) about consumers having confidence. This is a key issue that a number of Members raised during the passage of the Bill. The Department is satisfied that the necessary protections are in place.
The Member raised wider questions. It is our intention to bring forward legislation in the next session to address a range of issues such as rogue traders and other matters that are more "weighty" in nature — dare I use the expression?
I want to confirm to the Member that we are satisfied that the interests of consumers will be protected by this measure and that inspectors will continue to have the right to have surveillance over equipment. If any malpractice is detected, the option of prosecution remains available to us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIABill8/99) do now pass.

Family Law Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr James Leslie: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00).
The motion stands in the name of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Chairperson is unavoidably engaged elsewhere and has asked me to move this motion on his behalf. It has the approval of the Committee.
The Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill notionally started on 7 November, but at that time the Committee was still dealing with the Ground Rents Bill and, furthermore, had had two additional Bills placed before it — namely the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and the Defective Premises (Landlords’ Liability) Bill. Following consultation with the Minister, it was agreed that priority must be given to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill with a view to finishing it by the end of January because it must be in law, with Royal Assent, by the end of the financial year. That Bill, therefore, is the Committee’s first priority, and it will demand all our efforts over the next four to six weeks. It will be followed by the Defective Premises (Landlords’ Liability) Bill. We can only start on the Family Law Bill after we have completed these two other Bills.
Under the terms of Standing Order 48, and partly in response to remarks that were made in the Chamber during the Second Stage debate, the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee agreed to consider clauses 1 to 3 of the Family Law Bill, and we will be grateful for its input. However, that Committee also has a certain amount of legislation in front of it. Therefore, it will take some time for both Committees to give the Bill proper consideration. We felt that it was prudent to apply for the maximum extension available. We would like to complete the Bill before then but in view of the outlined schedule and the interference of the Christmas and Easter recesses it would require a considerable effort to complete it by the date sought.
I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Mark Durkan: I note the Deputy Chairperson’s concerns. I recognise that the Committee shares those concerns about the Family Law Bill and about other legislation that is causing congestion. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is not alone in that, as the Deputy Chairperson said.
The timetable for the remaining Assembly stages of the Family Law Bill will be tight if the Committee Stage is extended to 27 April 2001. Nonetheless, I hope that the Bill can complete its passage in this session. On that basis, I am content with the course of action set out in the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00).
The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

North/South Ministerial Council: Nominations

Mr Nigel Dodds: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what arrangements are in place to make nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 388/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Section 52(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states
"The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers and junior Ministers… as they consider necessary to ensure —
(a) such cross-community participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as is required by the Belfast Agreement".
In making such nominations, the First Minister and Deputy First Minster jointly decide on the nomination of at least one Unionist and one Nationalist Minister, or junior Ministers. The nomination forms, indicating the names, date and agenda of the meeting, are signed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. These details are notified to the Executive and to the Assembly in advance of the meetings, and the Ministers who participate in the North/South Ministerial Council subsequently report to the Assembly and the Executive.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In the light of the current arrangements, are the First Minister and Deputy First Minister aware of how the present farce is being viewed outside the House? The First Minister is being forced to defend himself in court as two Ministers sue him, and the Deputy First Minister is being named as a witness in support of the two Sinn Féin Ministers. Does the First Minister recall his statement of 1 November 2000, in which he said that he had taken the least possible measures? Is it not now time that he took the best possible measures, which would be for him to join with us in seeking to have Sinn Féin/IRA excluded from Government for failing to decommission? As regards the nomination arrangements, can the First Minister condemn the misuse of public money by Sinn Féin Ministers in legal shenanigans? Will he confirm that he will not authorise the spending of any public money on similar legal action, either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Deputy First Minister?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am disappointed that the Member does not realise that there is public interest in having a precise ascertainment of the law on this matter. It is for the benefit of us all to know exactly what the law is on this issue. It is clear, especially in view of some DUP comments this morning, that members of his party are gradually repositioning themselves as they insist on making comments indicating how ready and eager they are to interact with their counterparts in Dublin.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the First Minister agree that the non-nomination of Sinn Féin Ministers to the North/South Ministerial Council is clearly appropriate because of their failure to honour their obligations of 6 May 2000? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that taxpayers’ money is being used to contest this issue in the courts, particularly when there are priorities in education and health?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I appreciate the Member’s frustration. However, I repeat my response to the earlier question. It is in the public interest that the law be made clear on this matter, and I look forward to seeing the law clarified. In view of the ongoing legal proceedings, the Member might very well comment on the non-nomination of Sinn Féin Members, but I could not possibly add to that.

Mr Conor Murphy: Is the First Minister aware that his damaging behaviour towards the North/South institutions is likely to have a knock-on effect on all the institutions? If one institution is not functioning properly — as is currently the case with the North/South institution — that is likely to have a knock-on effect on the other institutions. Perhaps that is his intention, so that his exit strategy might be fulfilled with the suspension of all the institutions. Can he inform the House who is paying for his defence in the case currently going through the courts?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I said to other Members, it would be inappropriate for me to go into details on matters which will be considered by the court in the very near future. No doubt the Member will agree that the whole agreement hangs together and that there are reciprocal obligations that affect all participants. All of us need to reflect on that.

Hate Crime

Mr David Ford: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what action is being taken to reduce incidents of hate crime in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 407/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for his question. First, I should like — without taking issue with him — to call his attention to the term "hate crime". Perhaps we are letting those who indulge in such crimes off too lightly by not calling them by their correct names — racially motivated or sectarian crimes. Whatever words we use, I assure the Member that we deplore and condemn such actions as a manifestation of the underlying problem of community division.
As I said in my reply to Mr Ford during Question Time two weeks ago, the Programme for Government contains a considerable number of actions designed to address community divisions on a wide range of fronts. These include a proposal to implement cross-departmental policies to tackle racial inequality, involving targeted support for ethnic minority groups and projects within a strategic framework for the period 2001-03.
Responsibility for tackling crime, including the offence of stirring up racial or sectarian hatred or fear, is a reserved matter. However, tackling racism and sectarianism is as much about changing attitudes as about dealing with crime. The actions in the Programme for Government demonstrate our commitment to eradicating racism and sectarianism to create the pluralist, inclusive society we all wish to see in Northern Ireland. However, those are, by definition, longer-term than we should wish, and I ask, especially on this question, that none of us representing political opinion in the North of Ireland in any way contributes to the climate of sectarianism, racism or hate which exists in so many parts of the community.

Mr David Ford: Perhaps I shall have to answer the Minister’s question as part of my supplementary. Certainly, for us in this corner, when we talk about "hate crimes", it is clear that there is still a major problem with sectarianism, an example being last night’s disgraceful attack on Harryville parochial house. Racism has affected the Chinese community in recent weeks, and there is no doubt that homophobia is in many areas not far below the surface, an area of hate crimes —

Mr Speaker: I urge the Member to put his question.

Mr David Ford: I felt that the Minister deserved an answer, but I certainly shall. Will he —

Mr Speaker: It is not for the Member, but for the Minister, to give answers.

Mr David Ford: I wish you had told him before he asked me.
On that point, while accepting that the Minister has given a more detailed response than a fortnight ago — for which I am grateful — does he not agree that there must be a very strong commitment, expressed not in a year but in a week, across all Government Departments to improve community relations? Does he also agree that there is a need for the Executive to raise the necessity of hate crime legislation with the Secretary of State? While it is a reserved matter, it must be seen to affect us, and we must react to it.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his questions and, indeed, his answers. The person with the solution to the problems of hatred, division and racism in Northern Ireland is a very lucky individual indeed, and the party to which he belongs is very lucky. There are many facets to this question which we have seen in our own communities on a daily basis for 30 years. We have seen hatred not only between communities but within communities, streets, families and houses, and between ethnic groups.
Can there be anything as appalling as people coming to this country, North or South, for whatever reason — in many cases to get away from the bigotry and hatred they had to live with at home — only to be assaulted, as has happened to members of this city’s Chinese community?
Yes, we are acting in response to this and these actions are itemised in the Programme for Government. We can suggest to the Secretary of State ways in which the issue may be approached within his reserved powers. However, ultimately it is not going to be so simple — it is not just a question of law and order. I do not want to evade the subject, but it is not simply a question of getting law and enforcing it. Rather, it is a matter of changing mindsets and getting people to act humanely towards each other.

Mr John Dallat: Will the Deputy First Minister join me in deploring the view recently expressed by the DUP Mayor of Belfast that attacks on members of the Chinese community are not racially motivated? Can he assure us that the Assembly will continue to fund ethnic minority organisations in Northern Ireland?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Like the Member, I utterly deplore attacks on members of the Chinese community, regardless of the motivation. In contrast to the Belfast Lord Mayor, I believe that there are racist elements in our society and that almost certainly racism was a motivation for these attacks.
In the present financial year the community relations unit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is providing £135,000 in core funding to ethnic minority groups. This money will be used to provide salaries and support costs for the Chinese Welfare Association and the multicultural resource centre. The draft Budget statement includes a provision of £300,000 for the funding of ethnic minority voluntary organisations by the equality and social needs division of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This will include £250,000 for core funding and £50,000 for innovative projects. I repeat that this problem will not be solved by throwing money, law or power at it. It will be solved when we as a community begin to respect each other in every way.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is the Minister not concerned about the recent report on the many so-called paramilitary attacks on individuals? Is it not a serious situation when such a report has to be issued and that action is not taken on the matter because of the political implications? What is he going to do? Is he going to make representations to the Secretary of State about this? Ordinary people are very concerned about aspects of that report.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for his question which, I assume, relates to the Knox Report. I have looked at the report and have had some work done on it. Like every other form of abuse or hatred in Northern Ireland, I find it revolting. A completely communal approach will be needed to solve these matters.
I ask the Assemblyman if there is not something wrong with our questioning today. Why should we propose to ask the Secretary of State to have something done about the hatred, bigotry and violence in our community? Is that not antipathetic to the political process? Are we, or are we not, reaching a stage where we can, as a devolved body, stand on our own feet and deal with these problems in society, which are not confined to one side of our community? We all share those concerns and we share the desire to end such attitudes and violence.

Research on New TSN

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what research on New Targeting Social Need it has commissioned or put out to tender since September 2000.
(AQO 437/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Since September 2000 there have been seven New Targeting Social Need (TSN) research projects commissioned or put out to tender. The projects are designed to cover a range of New TSN issues, including poverty, targeting of resources, barriers to accessing services and disadvantaged areas.
The following projects were put out to tender and commissioned: a review of poverty indicators; the potential of New TSN to influence community differentials; skewing of resources for New TSN; and barriers to accessing services. Three projects were commissioned without being put out to tender, as the proposals were submitted by academic researchers as part of our wider community relations research strategy. They were: the impact of so-called chill factors on community behaviour in disadvantaged areas; minority ethnic communities’ educational needs and expectations; and differences in accessing further and higher education in relation to social and community background.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Can the First Minister outline the moneys available for research on equality, particularly New TSN, for the coming year?

Rt Hon David Trimble: To be effective, our work on New TSN, as in any policy area, must be informed by accurate data and research findings. Investment in research can help us to ensure that we are directing our efforts and resources appropriately and to monitor effectiveness.
In the draft Budget, £100,000 in each of the next three years has been allocated for equality and New TSN research. This resource is for research which will be conditioned and managed by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and will be relevant to core or crosscutting elements of the policy. Research commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is separate from research which other Departments may commission to meet their own New TSN research needs. We carefully considered our research needs and believe that the resources which I have mentioned are sufficient for current needs.

Mr David McClarty: Will the First Minister advise the Assembly how the equality unit selects consultants to undertake research on New TSN?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Generally, research is put out to open tender, in line with Government Purchasing Agency procedures. This means that about three to six companies on the Government Purchasing Agency’s framework list of competent suppliers are invited to submit tenders for the work. The exceptions to this are where academics or others submit research proposals for consideration or where small pieces of research, generally costing less than £10,000, are required.
Single tenders may occasionally be commissioned under certain conditions, for example, where there is a pressing need for information and a particular researcher has an established track record in the area. The Government Purchasing Agency’s framework list contains suppliers with a UK and Europe-wide presence. This list is constructed following advertisement and assessment of the applicants by an evaluation panel drawn from a wide range of Departments.

First and Deputy First Ministers: Meetings with Local Authorities

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the local authorities they plan to meet and the subjects they will discuss with them.
(AQO 394/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for the question. While we have attended many functions at which members of local councils were present, there have not been, for obvious reasons, any formal meetings. However, a wide range of Ministers has had extensive contacts with councils on subjects that fall within their responsibilities.
The First Minister and I have been to functions and meetings at which members of councils were present. Last week we were at a very valuable function in Armagh with many members of the council. I have personally attended at least two functions in Fermanagh attended by members of Fermanagh District Council. The Minister of the Environment, who has responsibility for local government, has hosted a reception for mayors, chairmen and chief executives of all 26district councils. He is currently working through this programme of group meetings with representatives of councils. Beyond this, contacts with local councils and officials of Departments are, of course, extensive and frequent.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: One could read into that answer a total disregard for local authorities. Can the Minister inform the House if he has had any discussions with councillors or with local authorities about the possibility of postponing next year’s local government elections? Does he agree that any postponement of the elections would be a travesty of the democratic process and that it would be perceived by many as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister running away from another South Antrim? Will he now give the House a commitment that they will insist that no such postponement will take place?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. May I suggest to him in a rather stuffy way that we should look at the facts? Section11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, as amended by the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, states that there will be local authority elections every fouryears. The Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 states that the election day referred to in the 1962 Act will be on the third Wednesday of May. Therefore the next local authority elections are due to be held on the third Wednesday of May2001, unless the Secretary of State decides otherwise.

A Member: Why ask the question?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: As the Assemblyman knows, any decision of that nature rests with the Secretary of State. I repeat that those elections are scheduled for May2001. I am not aware of any plans to change the date. Any change would require the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval, and there are a number of Members who would be present to give an informed view when that parliamentary approval might be sought, if such circumstances arose.

Transportation (North/South Ministerial Council)

Mr Alban Maginness: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline how it is intended to progress Northern Ireland’s transportation responsibilities within the North/South Ministerial Council.
(AQO 438/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is proposed to hold a North/ South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meeting on 19December. That meeting will probably be held back to back with a British-Irish Council sectoral meeting, also on transport. The North/South Ministerial Council meeting will address areas of co-operation on strategic transport planning and road and rail safety which would be beneficial to the entire community in Northern Ireland. The Deputy First Minister and I have written to the Minister for Regional Development to see if he is willing to attend the North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

Mr Alban Maginness: Can the First Minister assure me and other Members that if, as usual, the present Minister for Regional Development absents himself from North/South Ministerial Council meetings, the Executive, in order to safeguard the vital interests of Northern Ireland, and Ireland as a whole, will take action to remedy his absence?

Rt Hon David Trimble: One of the delightful aspects of the present situation is that we do not know who will be the Minister for Regional Development on 19December. As we know, the DUP is so concerned about maintaining continuity of responsibility that it proposes to revolve Ministers at dates which we do not know. Nonetheless, I assure the Member that the Deputy First Minister and I are determined to ensure that both the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will go ahead — and, of course, they interlock on transport matters.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. How does the First Minister intend to progress health and education responsibilities in the light of his refusal to nominate Ministers to cross-border ministerial meetings?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The question that I am answering relates to transport.

Mr Alan McFarland: Will the First Minister advise the Assembly if the Administration has expressed a view on the nomination of the Minister for Regional Development, or indeed the Minister for Social Development, concerning attendance of British-Irish Council meetings?

Rt Hon David Trimble: We are familiar with the stated public position of the DUP. However, as I observed earlier, listening to its Members this morning, it is clear that the DUP is trying to reposition itself on these matters. We thought it desirable, therefore, to write to the party to find out what its current policy is.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not usually take points of order during questions. I will take the Member’s point at the end of Question Time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Thank you.

Brussels Office for Northern Ireland

Mr Sean Neeson: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the new Northern Ireland office in Brussels will open.
(AQO 408/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for the question.
Work on the office has been proceeding since the summer, and it is expected that it will open in early March 2001. Procedures for staffing the office are progressing and will be completed early in the new year.
The office will provide a focal point for developing and advancing the Executive’s policies in Europe. It will facilitate Ministers and their officials in building contacts at the heart of Europe, so that we receive early warning of policy developments and can lobby in pursuit of our interests. It will provide a base for Ministers and officials from which they can operate when in Brussels.
The staff of the office will be appointed by the Northern Ireland Executive and will be members of the UK permanent representation, thus giving them access to meetings and to a level of information that they would not otherwise have. At the same time, the separate premises will provide a focal point for Northern Ireland in Brussels, helping us to develop a distinct and positive profile within the EU.

Mr Sean Neeson: The premises in Brussels were identified some time ago. Can the Minister explain the unacceptable delay in establishing the office, bearing in mind that the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have had facilities there for some time?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I share the Member’s frustration with the delay. The lease on the office premises adjacent to the European Parliament in Brussels was signed earlier this year, but progress in setting up the office was delayed by the suspension of devolution. On the restoration of devolution, work on the office resumed. We had hoped that it would be open earlier than March, but the need for consultation with a wide range of interests caused some delay. The Member is absolutely right about the delay.
The work of fitting out the office must meet all Government procurement requirements and all security and health and safety requirements. We have also been concerned to ensure that the layout and facilities of the office meet the requirements of the Executive — in particular, facilities for seminars, meetings and receptions. Space will also be needed for visiting Ministers and officials, as well as for the resident staff of the office. The design of the premises has now been approved, and a contract will shortly be signed with the managing agents. Work on fitting out the premises will begin this month and will be completed by March, by which time staff will be in place. I hope that it will be finished, and I repeat that I share the Member’s frustration about the delay.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the opening of the office in March. It will be a good day for the Assembly when we have an office in Brussels. How will the office of the Executive in Brussels assist in the promotion of Northern Ireland in Europe?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It can do so in several ways. First, it can give us a separate and unique identity in Brussels, without taking away any of the political clout available through the UK permanent representation. That is important because people in the EU regard the Northern Ireland situation as unique.
Planning for a European marketing campaign involving the First Minister, Sir Reg Empey and myself in early 2001 is at an initial stage. In those circumstances the office in Brussels would help to facilitate the promotion of the Executive’s policies in key areas such as agriculture, structural funds and inward investment. The office will also provide an opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland products and services, and to boost trade and tourism in particular.
Crucially, the office will give us a full-time voice at the heart of Europe, which will be able to help us only if we put our message across properly. The Executive must get straight to the heart of Brussels and the European Union without any further delay.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the Deputy First Minister outline what contact there has been with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) about the creation of a one-stop shop? Also, will the office be for the use of Assembly Members, or only for Executive use?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. There are two parts to it. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are expecting confirmation from NICE on its ongoing position. It is hoped that that will happen very quickly. NICE has been in consultation with the Department of Finance and Personnel regarding funding for a relationship with the district councils and the presentation of a wider view, taking district councils into account. Formalisation with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has not yet taken place.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Deputy First Minister to bring his answer to a close.

Mr Seamus Mallon: There will be an office in the new building for all those who seriously, and collectively, want to sell the produce of Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: In an earlier supplementary question, a Member mentioned a statement by another Member who holds the office of Lord Mayor of Belfast. It is normal practice when a Member is named and some response is made that that Member is given an opportunity to respond. The Member in question has asked for that opportunity.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to reply to a most selective and despicable attack by the SDLP in the House. Over the past six months I have had extensive contact with the Chinese community in Belfast. Indeed, I have many further engagements lined up with them. I count many people in the Chinese community as my personal friends. I therefore find it particularly hurtful that this selective attack has been made.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to be brief in his response.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The issue that the Member referred to was a response to attacks that were made in one week across the community. That week seven pensioners were attacked in their homes, four women were attacked late at night in service stations or shops, and four attacks were made on members of the Chinese community. I stated that those attacks reflected the general decline in the community. I said that all crime was to be condemned and that it was wrong to simply attach a particular reason to that crime when there had been no police, court or any other evidence, and when that kind of reason only sought to stir up racial hatred in the city.

Mr Speaker: The Member has had a reasonable opportunity to set the record straight.
Two points have been raised, by Dr Paisley and Mr Trimble.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Was it in order for the First Minister to refer in the House to a letter which he had received from a Minister without giving the contents of that letter, and completely hiding from the House that he had had a full reply? Rather than give a reply to that letter, he tried to put a gloss on something that the DUP was doing. The First Minister need not shake his head.

Mr Speaker: Order. The question is whether the matter is in order. It is in order for Members to quote less than a full letter — that is clear. That what is said may not be helpful, acceptable or congenial is not a matter of order. However, the Member has made his point.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have two points to make in relation to points of order.
It is not in order for people to make allegations that are not accurate. I did not quote any letter; I merely stated that I had written to make an enquiry. It appears from the comments that have been made that there may have been a reply to that letter. I will read it with interest when it reaches me.
My original point of order, Mr Speaker, was that I would welcome a detailed ruling from you — which might not be appropriate off the cuff — as to when it is appropriate for Members to make personal statements. Many attacks are made on Members. I can recall many occasions when those in the Member’s corner of the Chamber attacked me. I have not sought an opportunity to make a personal statement, but it would help Members if you, MrSpeaker, were to give detailed consideration to the circumstances in which personal statements are appropriate so that we might all make them when we are attacked.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am happy to oblige the First Minister. I must advise Members that making unparliamentary comments from a sedentary position is no more acceptable than making them from a standing position.
We have come to the end of questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, I trust, to those matters which have arisen from them.

Culture, Arts and Leisure

Question 1 was withdrawn.

Sports Grounds: Safety

Mr Jim Wilson: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what assistance is being offered to football clubs to improve health and safety standards at their grounds.
(AQO 424/00)

Mr Eddie McGrady: 11. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make a statement on safety at sports grounds in NorthernIreland.
(AQO 393/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will take questions2 and11 together.
Under the safe sports ground scheme, funding of almost £3million has been allocated to improve health and safety at sports grounds, of which £1·825million has been allocated to soccer. A total of £250,000 has been earmarked for safety management. That will be spread across football, GAA and rugby.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [MsMorrice] in the Chair)

Mr Jim Wilson: Does the Minister agree that football clubs here have over many years made a massive contribution towards normalising society and that whatever disruptions were visited upon them, they persevered with their fixture lists? Does he recognise that small clubs and the large clubs have contributed equally? Will he assure the House that all football clubs are eligible to apply for funding under the scheme?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with the remarks in the first part of the question. Football is, in my view, part of our heritage and our legacy, and it has made an enormous contribution over 25years when society here was, to an extent, in chaos. The risks to spectators’ health and safety are directly related to crowd size, so clubs in the Premier and First Divisions are the only ones which are eligible to apply for funding. More significant risks are attached to health and safety at games where those clubs are playing. It is estimated that we need around £25million to upgrade all existing stadiums, and to date we have managed to amass £5million from a variety of sources. Prioritisation is required and we will look at the worse cases first.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I welcome the Minister’s announcement on funding for safety in sports grounds, but will he ensure that the funding to provide proper health and safety in sports grounds will be recurrent for the years after the two-year period? How long will it be before the recommendations of the Taylor Report are put into effect for Gaelic, rugby and soccer primary pitches in NorthernIreland?
When such recommendations are introduced, will they be accompanied by the essential financial arrangements and resources to make them effective? Will the Minister bring forward legislation as soon as possible for health and safety at sports grounds in NorthernIreland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This year we have a recurrent health and safety funding budget of £3 million. Much of this has been allocated through the Agenda for Government, with a stipulation that it be spent in this financial year. However, we have so far secured £1·5 million for year 2. We do not know what the football foundation funding will be for year 3, but we are assured of a minimum of £800,000.
This is not the end of the story, and we recognise that the problem is ongoing. This point is linked to MrJWilson’s earlier question. The Taylor Report provides most of the spur for our plans. If the health and safety conditions of the Taylor Report were to be applied now, we would have to close virtually every ground in Northern Ireland. That is a major reason for proceeding with this.
The Taylor Report will require legislation, and the Department will bring forward legislation in due course. I cannot give a specific timescale, but we recognise that this must happen sooner rather than later.

Mr Norman Boyd: Will the Minister clarify why only some Irish League clubs have received recent funding, while other applicants have been declined, even though their grounds are in a very poor state?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I indicated earlier, only Premier and First Division football clubs and Derry City are eligible for funding. Derry City is part of the League of Ireland. Criteria are laid down for the available funding. So far we have announced funding for clubs in category A and category B. Category B includes First Division soccer clubs and secondary county GAA clubs. Premier Division teams, main county GAA clubs and rugby clubs are classified as category A. The funding will be administered by the Sports Council.
The Sports Council has made a series of awards, but only to clubs that applied for funding and received nothing from this tranche. The first club was Crusaders, which stated in its application that work could not begin until summer 2001. One of the criteria under the Agenda for Government was that the money should be used in this financial year. In addition, Crusaders had no partnership funding, nor the prospect of receiving any. I could award a maximum of 85% funding with a requirement that it fund the remaining 15%; unfortunately, Crusaders does not have that 15% at present.
We are aware of the needs of Crusaders, and it was from Seaview that I announced the scheme, in the company of the chairman, Jim Semple. Portadown was also unsuccessful; it could not provide the 15% partnership funding. In addition, it did not consult with the Environmental Health Agency in Craigavon, and we have no clear indications of the improvements it wishes to make. However, Portadown received almost £21,000 under the urgent works scheme, which is the minor scheme.
Most clubs that applied were successful. Unfortunately, Crusaders and Portadown were not successful at the time. However, the Sports Council will actively work with them, through its technical support team, to ensure that they meet the criteria and obtain the support that they badly need.

Mr Jim Shannon: Can the Minister confirm that clubs that have not qualified for assistance this year will qualify in the second tranche? When will the second tranche become available? Which First Division clubs qualify for this financial assistance, and does it also apply to clubs that want to carry out new building work?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: When the new financial year opens in April 2001 the Sports Council will be in a position to look at another round of applications.
A list of the clubs in receipt of money has been published. I have already dealt with Crusaders and Portadown, but a series of First Division clubs will also be eligible. However, I should point out that First Division clubs are not currently eligible for major works but will receive 85% on programme 2 funding, which is for urgent first-aid works. They are also eligible for safety management funding.

Responsibility for Libraries

Mrs Eileen Bell: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for the libraries from the education and library boards to his Department.
(AQO 412/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The education and library boards continue to have a statutory duty to provide library services. Following devolution, policy development and financial support for the public library service transferred from the former Department of Education for Northern Ireland to my Department. Since taking over policy responsibility for the public library service I have announced that a new library will be built for Strabane as part of the Strabane 2000 initiative. A new library in Portadown is due to be completed by the end of this year, and I will shortly release resources to widen access to library services and enable boards to carry out essential health, safety and security work at some public libraries.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Libraries should be a priority within the Minister’s Department because they have been the Cinderellas of the education and library boards for far too long, though perhaps for justifiable reasons. Many libraries — not least my own — need urgent attention to bring them up to safe and proper standards. Will the Minister seriously consider a private finance initiative (PFI) in this area?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The South Eastern Education and Library Board is currently pursuing the PFI route for the provision of a new library in Lisburn, and the outline business case is currently being agreed. Prior to that, the Department provided support to purchase the site in Linenhall Street, Lisburn. There has been movement forward because of PFI, and it is important to explore that route. If PFI can be made successful in Lisburn, it can be made successful everywhere. If it cannot be made successful in Lisburn, the sooner we know that, the better. We can then revert to traditional routes for funding.
Regarding other provisions, the Member mentioned her own area within the South Eastern Education and Library Board. Bangor and Ards, as well as Lisburn, are listed as requiring new libraries. The Lisburn library will cost £3·8 million, and the costs of those in Bangor and Ards range from £2·5 million to £3·8 million. There is, therefore, a substantial capital requirement in the board area, and the way forward at the minute is PFI. I remind the Member that I have secured an additional £700,000 for library capital development next year as the result of a spending review, which we all recognise is seriously inadequate.

Mr Ivan Davis: I congratulate the Minister on securing an extra £700,000 for public libraries through the October monitoring round. Lisburn has been waiting for a new library for 25 years, and year after year we were told it was a number one priority. With all due respect, I fail to understand how Portadown and Strabane moved ahead of us.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware of the background, certainly not over 25 years. We are where we are, and I have what I have inherited this situation from the Department. As I indicated to Mrs Bell, three capital-spend libraries are regarded as priorities in the board area — Lisburn, Bangor and Ards.
Lisburn is the furthest ahead in terms of PFI, and my understanding is that Ards and Bangor have not secured their sites. So far as Strabane is concerned, the initiative has been launched. That is a different board area, and the funding for that is, as I said, historical. I cannot comment further on Lisburn, except to say that we are actively pursuing this and we see it as a matter of urgency, not least because of the representations in the past from MrDavis, Mr Close and others.

Leisure Centres: Rates for Disabled People

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 4. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he will consider introducing concessionary rates for disabled people using leisure centres.
(AQO 443/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Responsibility for leisure centre provision lies with district councils. Each district council has a statutory obligation under the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to secure provision of adequate facilities for recreational, social, physical and cultural activities for its area. The determination of pricing policies for leisure centre admission, including any decision to introduce concessionary rates for people with a disability, lies with district councils and it is therefore a matter for them to consider as to how best to respond to local need, including the needs of the disabled.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I acknowledge that there are council areas in Northern Ireland which cater for the disabled by having reduced charges for leisure facilities. My council — Strabane — has a gold card scheme which enables athletes to use the facilities at no charge. Disabled athletes can also avail of this service. However, disabled people who are not into sport would only require access to the swimming pool, sauna and so forth as a leisure and pastime —

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please refer to the question.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I would like to see a special fund to help councils offer concessionary rates to disabled people, without passing the cost on to ratepayers because the majority of leisure centres are run at a loss.

Ms Jane Morrice: What is the question?

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Could the Minister set up a task force and a special fund to subsidise leisure facilities for disabled people?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Under the Agenda for Government I have already announced the ADAPT 21 initiative to provide audits on a pilot basis for a range of sporting and cultural venues, including leisure centres, to assess what needs to be done to make these venues accessible for the disabled. There will be a small grants scheme. The scheme will be expanded in due course. In addition, in keeping with the Programme for Government, we are encouraging greater participation in sport by disabled persons by promoting equal opportunity, developing youth programmes and opportunities for increasing participation in sports and leisure. We are in the process of forming a working group to draw up a template for cultural and leisure provision within each district council area to permit an audit of existing provisions and to identify gaps in the service, including the needs of those persons who are disabled.

Mr George Savage: The Minister will know that many disabled people have very low incomes, and we must hope that district councils, as the representative authority, will take account of this in setting their pricing policies. However, I am sure the Minister will accept that he has a role in encouraging people to use leisure centres. What efforts is he making to do that?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I indicated to Mr McMenamin — [Interruption]
Does the Member want me to give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: I was asking the Minister to lead by example.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Oh, I see. It is Castlereagh Council coming in. —[Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I indicated in my answer to Mr McMenamin, we have formed a working group to draw up a template for cultural and leisure provision within each district council area. This important point is well made we have taken it on board.
Participation and the widening of access are key elements in the provision of leisure services. Integration of those who suffer a disability is another. Mainstreaming those who have a disability is an important element that we take seriously. In addition, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is committed to providing equality of opportunity for those who suffer social disadvantage for any reason, including disability, and through the distribution of lottery funds it can now afford a higher priority to projects that provide opportunities for people with disabilities.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I understand the Department’s reluctance to become involved in providing funding for concessionary entrance fees for disabled people attending community centres, and I think that local councils ought to take that on board themselves, but given the fact that many leisure facilities that were built in the 1970s and early 1980s were not built with the standards of access for the disabled that exist today, will the Minister give a commitment that whatever capital works are required to make leisure facilities more accessible to the disabled, funding will be made available to local councils to help with such projects?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Mr S Wilson will, of course, understand that I am unable to give such a commitment at this time. A working group is currently drawing up a template for provision in each district council area. Furthermore, the Member is well aware that under the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 each district council has a statutory obligation to make that provision. We are there to lend our support, but I cannot give commitments for capital projects. However, under ADAPT Northern Ireland and the Agenda for Government, we have announced work and progress in programmes along those lines.

Minister: Meeting with Sports Council CEO

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to outline his plans to meet with the chief executive officer of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and what subjects will be on the agenda for discussion.
(AQO 391/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My officials and I meet the chief executive of the Sports Council on a regular basis to discuss a broad range of topics. These include the safe sports ground scheme, the development of a soccer strategy for Northern Ireland, motorcycling, a national stadium for Northern Ireland, disability sport and ice hockey — to name but a few. I have plans to meet the chairman and the chief executive over the course of the next few weeks to discuss budgets and related matters.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: With regard to motorcycle racing, has any progress been made concerning the feasibility study to develop motor sport, both on-road and on-track, here? What resources will the Minister be able to commit to the development of this excellent sport?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In respect of motorcycling, a road- racing task force has been set up and is charged with reviewing all aspects of road racing. Careful consideration will be given to the task force’s findings, which we expect to be in receipt of on 14December 2000. In addition, £20,000 has been made available to appoint consultants to look at existing short circuits and to consider the need and scope for a Grand Prix circuit in Northern Ireland. Once we have worked out what needs to be done and what is feasible with the representatives of motor sport, such as the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland, we can then address resources. However, this cannot be done until I can estimate what the sport requires or believes is necessary for them.

Mr David McClarty: The Minister will recall the broad welcome he received when he announced the establishment of his football task force.
Does he agree that an ambitious youth development programme is the real key for guaranteeing the long-term success of football? Will he assure the House that youth development will be a priority of the task force?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The soccer strategy was first announced on 16 August, and on 20 October plans were unveiled to develop the strategy. An advisory panel has been established with a wide range of expertise and experience. Consultants are being engaged to take views on the difficulties facing the game and a conference and workshop will be held in the new year which will bring together key interests to debate the issues and to identify ideas for action.
Before the end of the current season in May 2001 the process will produce a draft strategy document to be issued for wide consultation. The process will not only look at the state of senior league soccer but will consider all aspects of the game, including grassroots and youth development, club links with the community and with schools, girls’ and women’s soccer, facilities and resources. It is meant to be a wide-ranging review and it is intended to produce a strategy and vision for soccer in Northern Ireland to take us many years into the future. We are keen to see full consultation with all sectors of the game.

Sectarianism in Sport

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure why measures to tackle sectarianism in sport were not included in the Draft Programme for Government.
(AQO 409/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Although not specifically mentioned in the Programme for Government, the issue of sectarianism in sport is included under the safe sports grounds scheme, which is referred to in section 2.4.2. It is a condition of grant under this scheme that successful applicants will be required to formulate an equity statement for inclusion in the organisation’s constitution memorandum and articles of association, highlighting practical measures on how family disability and sectarian issues will be addressed.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I must express disappointment. Do the Minister and his Executive not feel that sectarianism in sport merits taking legislative action where necessary? We are all aware of the difficulties at sports fields. Could the Minister not introduce some means of dealing with this as soon as possible?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Sectarianism is not confined to sport; it is a problem in society in general. Unfortunately, sport reflects the society in which it is played. Many things are not specifically mentioned in the Programme for Government, but there are ongoing programmes concerned with matters such as sectarianism in sport. It is something that we take extremely seriously. As regards football — and the Member has asked similar questions about football — I had a meeting on 22 August with the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the Sports Council specifically to look at soccer. Sectarianism is by no means confined to soccer. The IFA is fully committed to anti-sectarianism and has formulated a policy which includes, for example, a compulsory community relations module, a handbook for coaches, referees and players, outreach to primary schools, strong community relations messages and support for clubs, organisations and cross-community football projects.
Sectarianism is not ignored simply because it is not contained in the Programme for Government. Everything cannot be included, but sectarianism is one of several matters that the Government are tackling on an ongoing basis.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the financial assistance that is being offered for health and safety contingent on clubs’ eradicating sectarianism?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Anyone taking up financial assistance, for example, on the safe sports grounds scheme is also required to take up the safety management scheme. The scheme includes support for training stewards and ensuring that there is no sectarian chanting in grounds. Training for staff and stewards in crowd management and dealing with sectarianism are among the areas for which funding is available.

Dr Ian Adamson: Given that commitment to equality will be demanded from sports clubs applying for assistance under the safe sports grounds scheme, how will clubs affiliated to the Gaelic Athletic Association, which has sectarianism written into its rules, qualify? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have already dealt extensively with the issue of moneys available for the safe sports grounds scheme. I believe that the Member is referring to rule 21, which I would very much like to see deleted. That matter is being addressed, and I have had discussions with the GAA authorities. As with other issues facing our society, progress can be made. I have no reason to believe that rule 21 is written in stone, but I could be wrong. Sport reflects society. We seek to change not only sport, but society as a whole. The GAA authorities are well aware of the difficulties that rule 21 poses.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Farmers: Subsidy Payments

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline her plans to improve the system for making subsidy payments to farmers.
(AQO416/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am acutely aware of the problems caused by the endless bureaucracy that arises from conforming to EU regulations. The Department and the farmer have a role to play in ensuring prompt payment. The payments are worth over £150 million a year. Delayed payments can cause hardship to an already hard-pressed farming community. Prompt payment and clear information is important, particularly in current circumstances.
Several improvements have already been made. For example, claim forms have been simplified and more reprinted individual claim data have been included. Claim forms that can be scanned, reducing the manual keying-in of data, have also been introduced and are being used more extensively.
In the coming year the Department will introduce a number of other initiatives to improve the service to producers. The facility to make direct payments into bank accounts will be made available during 2001. My officials are also preparing, for publication during 2001, a detailed protocol that will provide a comprehensive and clear explanation to farmers of how their subsidy claims will be handled, what they can expect from the Department, and what the Department will expect from them. Provision will be made for consultation on the protocol before it is finalised.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Is the Department meeting the targets, published last June, for the delivery of subsidy payments? How does its record compare with the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have taken a close interest in the recent difficulties, which resulted from teething problems with two computer programs. One deals with suckler cow producers and large herds — about 200 cases — and the second deals with the Agenda 2000 reduction in suckler cow quotas. The most recent problem occurred when we introduced a scanner that created further difficulties by not taking up the continuation sheets. We have sorted that out and the 200 cases have been dealt with. I am satisfied that those problems have been fully resolved and have not caused my Department to miss payment targets.
Under European Commission legislation, which applies to all member states, advanced premiums for the various year 2000 schemes could commence on 16 October. In Northern Ireland cheques were issued from 20 October — the earliest possible day to comply with the accounting arrangements for the drawing down of European funds. Payments have been issued in accordance with the timetable which I published on 12 October.
A significant number of claims have been paid well ahead of this timetable. To date, 84% of suckler cow claims received before 30 October have been processed for advance payment, as have 82% of beef special premium claims, 73% of slaughter premium claims, and 98% of first and second advance payments of 2,000 annual sheep premium claims.
This performance compares favourably with payments in Great Britain. Direct comparisons with the Republic of Ireland are misleading and difficult. Its targets are less comprehensive; its administration arrangements are different; and in some cases, such as with the suckler cow premiums, the scheme closes much earlier to give a head start in making the payments.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minister will be aware of the difficulty of getting money into farmers’ pockets. When her officials met my Committee last Friday I brought to their attention a resolution on the pig industry. Can she assure the House that she will study this document carefully and that if there is a way of getting money directly to the pig producers, she will follow that route?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not sure if Dr Paisley is aware that Nick Brown today announced the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme, which I am pleased to confirm will now go ahead. As the Member is aware, I have made very strong representations to Nick Brown, on foot of which he has made representations to the commissioner.
The outgoers scheme, which enables those who want to leave the industry to receive compensation, is open from today, as announced by the House of Commons. It is hoped that the ongoers scheme will begin at the start of January. It will enable those who want to remain in the industry to restructure. Dr Paisley will be very pleased to hear that news, as will everyone in the hard-pressed pig sector.

Leader+

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the key elements of the LEADER+ programme recently submitted to Brussels.
(AQO 442/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: LEADER+ will have three main areas of activity, called actions. The first of these is support for rural development strategies implemented by local action groups, which will account for some 85% of the LEADER+ budget. The second is co-operation to support joint projects between different rural areas with special provision to encourage co-operation projects between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The third is networking to share expertise and best practice between rural areas. The local action groups in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be encouraged to develop closer networking links and to hold meetings more regularly to facilitate networking on a cross-border basis.
In addition, networking on an east/west basis between Great Britain and Ireland will also be encouraged. LEADER+ in Northern Ireland will have a primary focus on microbusiness development and job creation. It will therefore help to increase private sector involvement in the rural development programme. Actions can take account of environmental, social and community-based requirements. Detailed proposals at local level will not be known until local action groups have submitted their plans to the Department. I will arrange for copies of the programme to be placed in the Assembly Library. A copy can also be downloaded from the Department’s web site.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The LEADER programme was established by the European Commission. Its overall objective was to assist broadly based local rural groups, capable of implementing medium- to long-term plans for development of their areas. Were the rural groups consulted on the new LEADER+ programme?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I can confirm that rural community groups have been involved throughout the consultation process for LEADER+, which ran from March to October this year. The process began on 8March 2000, when the Department issued a major consultation document. In June I invited prospective local action groups to submit summaries of their proposals for strategies in their areas so that the Department could consider how the aims and objectives of, and criteria for, LEADER+ should be drafted to avoid excluding good proposals made by local groups. As a final stage of consultation, a draft of the programme was issued for public comment on 2 October, with the deadline of 13 October for responses. The final version of the programme was then prepared, taking into account the comments of the Assembly Committee and public responses to consultations.

Rivers Agency

Mr Roy Beggs: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the Budget allocation to the Rivers Agency; and if she will make a statement.
(AQO427/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Rivers Agency has a total budget of £21·1 million in the current financial year. Of this, approximately £9·6 million is allocated to staff and running costs; £8·6 million to capital works projects to alleviate flooding risks; and £2·9 million to the maintenance of watercourses. The figure for capital projects represents an increase of some £3 million over the previous year. That increase is being applied to securing an acceleration in the programme of capital works so that flood alleviation schemes on the agency’s prioritised list will be carried out earlier than would otherwise be possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: In areas such as my constituency of East Antrim, there has been a marked increase in flooding with associated pressures on engineers. The Rivers Agency has been carrying out the vital job of establishing the causes of flooding and recommending a solution. Does the Minister agree that to enable early and accurate assessment of flooding, it is essential that resources be redirected to areas where there are such pressures?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The agency’s capital budget baseline has been increased by £3 million per annum and is subject to the Assembly’s ratification of future budget proposals. It is my intention to maintain this increased level of funding in future years. Like the Member, I am aware of the difficulties in his constituency. I know that they have been severe, and I know that the Rivers Agency has worked very hard to deal with the immediate problems.
As for schemes to alleviate the long-term problem, they will take time. There is a statutory obligation on us to go through impact assessment and all that that requires, and we must also prioritise on the basis of independent criteria. However, we will do our best despite those delaying factors.

European Agriculture Conference

Mr John Dallat: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to confirm that there are plans to bring a major European agriculture conference to Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 441/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am very pleased to confirm to the Assembly that the National Farmers’ Union has announced that the annual conference of the Confederation of European Agriculture is to take place in Belfast in September 2001. This is a major and highly prestigious event which will bring some 700 delegates, and perhaps a further 300 or so people in supporting roles, to Northern Ireland. I am greatly looking forward to my role in preparing and organising the conference, together with the National Farmers’ Union, the Belfast Events Company and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Those who attend the conference and visit this part of the world, many no doubt for the first time, will go away with a very favourable impression of Northern Ireland and will have enjoyed a successful conference.

Mr John Dallat: This is indeed a shot in the arm for Belfast and for the whole of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is a clear statement that agriculture is still alive and well in Northern Ireland, as indeed is tourism?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I agree enthusiastically with the Member’s comments. As well as the obvious economic benefit of having 1,000 visitors staying in Belfast for the best part of a week, and the boost that that can give to the city’s business, there are the wider benefits of visitors seeing for themselves all that Northern Ireland has to offer and carrying that message back to their homes and their colleagues throughout Europe. I hope that the agenda for the conference will be drawn up flexibly enough to allow delegates to see something of rural Northern Ireland and its farming practices as well as the city of Belfast.

Farm Retirement

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail when she expects the independent study into farm retirement to be completed; and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 434/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: My officials have invited bids from organisations with the necessary expertise to carry out the study, which will also cover a new entrant scheme. I would like to see the study completed before the end of February, when the vision group is due to report. I announced an independent study because there is considerable pressure from farming and other interests to introduce an early retirement scheme.
On the other hand, the evidence for the effectiveness of such schemes is mixed, and the vision group did not recommend one in its ‘Emerging Themes’ paper. Given the different views, I decided that I should seek an independent assessment.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I look forward to the end of February with interest and enthusiasm. If the study comes down in favour of an early retirement scheme, will the Minister undertake to introduce one?

Ms Brid Rodgers: If the report comes down in favour of an early retirement scheme, I certainly will have to give it serious consideration. However, I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the study. We will also have to be aware of the cost implications, and I will discuss this with the Executive and members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. Such schemes, as Members will be aware, do not come cheaply, and on the basis of a lump sum scheme covering 750 farmers, the cost, over threeyears, would be £30million.
In all probability this would mean committing all the unallocated modulation and match funding money for the years concerned. The annual sums would be less under an annuity scheme but would involve a commitment of up to 15 years, depending on how long the scheme was to operate. Clearly, it would cost a lot of money. I do not want to pre-empt anything. I do not want to pre-empt the fact that I might even have to go with my begging bowl to the Executive and to the Minister, MrDurkan, in particular. I have initiated the study because I want to make an informed decision on what is the best way forward for the restructuring of the agriculture industry.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the fact that the Minister appears to have a slightly more open mind than, perhaps, her officials have had in the past on the issue of retirement. Can she give us an assurance that she will have a completely open mind on restructuring and on the need to support new entrants to agriculture and put the emphasis on that rather than on the retirement aspect, which is somewhat more negative?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure the Member that I always have an open mind on all issues.
I will have to give serious consideration to the new entrant scheme. I also have to be aware of the cost implications, and I will discuss this with the Executive Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.
A new entrant scheme on its own would undoubtedly be less costly than an early retirement scheme, but to introduce the two together would involve committing all the unallocated modulation and match funding for the years concerned. As I have said, I do not want to pre-empt the study’s findings. I have a completely open mind, I always have had, and I am not afraid to change my mind. If I get good ideas from anyone across the Floor, or from the Agriculture Committee, I will take them on board. If they are feasible, reasonable and affordable, I will go with them.

Farmers: Extensification Counts

Mr Gerry McHugh: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will undertake to improve the dissemination of information between her Department and farmers in relation to extensification counts.
(AQO410/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Comprehensive information about the extensification payment scheme and stocking density reference dates and requirements is provided by the Department to producers. Before the scheme was introduced at the start of this year, a letter was issued to all farmers who had claimed under the previous extensification payment scheme, advising them of the forthcoming changes. In February 2000 this was followed up with guidance notes. The six census dates for the scheme year are announced in the press, and notification is also issued to individual applicants.
Details of the livestock units found on each holding are issued to producers after each census date. The Department is able to calculate and advise producers of their overall average stocking density because of the availability of data from the animal and public health information system, which is not available in other regions. The accuracy of the stocking density information provided to producers is thoroughly tested and checked before being issued. Farmers are encouraged to contact the Department if they have a query about the information. To date, fewer than 180 from over 22,000 applicants for the extensification payment scheme 2000 have done so. My officials aim to provide the best possible information to producers and maintain close contacts with the farming industry to ensure that systems are improved where possible.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the IT facilities and so forth available to the Department, the time lapse experienced by those 180 people should not happen. The Department has figures about the position of farmers, yet it can take up to six weeks for information to filter through. That could be significantly tightened up if the available IT facilities were used. Can the Minister look at ways of shortening that timescale so that complaints are not received from as many as 180 people?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My Department’s officials are constantly looking at ways to provide a better service but as I have said, 180 out of 22,000 is not a staggering number of people querying the information they have received. We would like total perfection, and we are doing our best. It is not a bad record, and if the Member, or any other Member, has suggestions about how we could improve it, I will certainly take them on board. However, additional resources are currently being allocated to IT to improve our effectiveness. I have to compliment my officials because their role is not always an easy one. It has to be remembered that this is a two-way process. The farming community must also play its part in helping the Department.

Mr Joe Byrne: I note the Minister’s answer, and I appreciate that it is difficult for farmers to keep up to date with information about new schemes. Can the Minister tell the House how the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development system compares with that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London and with that of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in Dublin?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am pleased to inform the Member that because my Department has a computerised database, producers in Northern Ireland are not required to make declarations of their bovine animals on each census date. My Department does the calculations and producers receive up-to-date information about their average stocking density levels. Producers in England have to declare the total number of their bovine livestock units on each census date. The information is collated, and producers are notified of their average stocking density at the next census date.
The Republic of Ireland does not have an operational database. Producers, therefore, are required to make declarations on each census date. To sum up, in this instance we are ahead of the posse.

Young Farmers

Mr Jim Wilson: 8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail the measures she is taking to encourage young farmers to remain in the industry.
(AQO 431/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: My Department already provides comprehensive support services to help stimulate the development of a competitive and forward-looking industry. For young people wishing to entry the industry, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development colleges provide a wide range of high-quality courses that enable them to develop their potential while obtaining the necessary expertise to improve business performance. On completion of the course, the young people are encouraged to retain contact with the college, to avail of ongoing college services and to keep in touch with their fellow students.

Mr Jim Wilson: The average age of a farmer in Northern Ireland is approximately 55 years. Does the Minister agree that the most meaningful action she could take to allow young farmers to enter and remain in the industry would be to introduce an early retirement scheme? I appreciate that she has addressed this question in a different form in response to an earlier supplementary question, but I would be happy if she would return to it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I have already said, I have an open mind and I am examining every area. I accept the Member’s point that because of the difficulties in the industry there is a fear that young people may not be encouraged to take jobs in farming. Young people are perhaps not being given the same chance because older employees remain in the industry for too long. I am looking at all those issues. I realise that the industry must be restructured. I am awaiting the report of the vision group and also the report of the study that I instigated into early retirement. I widened the latter to enable us to think about the position of new entrants. I will be in a better position to make a decision when I have all the information to hand.

Beef Quality: Additional Allocation

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 9. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will detail how she proposes to spend the additional allocation of £300,000 for beef quality announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 20 November.
(AQO 401/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The £300,000 announced on 20November is supplementary to the £2 million per year proposed for the improvement of beef quality under the Programme for Government. The additional allocation will allow work to begin on quality improvement earlier than was anticipated. The details of the beef quality programme are still under development. I wish to consult the industry, and I will seek the views of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee before finalising the programme. It will also be necessary to take account of EU state aid rules.
However, the options being considered include: first, improving the quality characteristics of replacement heifers from a suckler herd; secondly, improving the quality measures and technical information available on pedigree sires; thirdly, encouraging commercial calf producers to purchase bulls with good performance records; and finally, ensuring the effective adoption of best management practice and modern technology in the beef production sector. I hope that the final programme will cover all these elements. I intend to introduce the full programme as early in 2001 as possible.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister agree that there are two other important issues to consider? The first is the improvement of livestock quality, especially beef from the dairy herd, and the second is the promotion of Northern Ireland beef on the basis of high-quality production based on natural grass and traceability. Does the Minister agree that her Department needs to take further action on both these issues?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Although improving the quality of beef is an issue, I assure the House that my Department and its advisers also work closely with the dairy sector to make improvements. As the Member is aware, Greenmount College offers courses for farmers who want to improve their milk outputs. We are working constantly on those matters.

Beef Regime: National Envelope Payments

Mr Boyd Douglas: 10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail her plans for the national envelope payments within the beef regime for the year 2001; and if she will make a statement.
(AQO395/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have not yet decided how I will allocate the increased funds for the beef national envelope in 2001. For 2001, the available funds for Northern Ireland will increase from £2·6 million to £5·2 million. My officials are consulting with the interested organisations on how they want to see the money spent. Before making my final decision I will seek the views of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, and I hope to be in a position to do this very soon.

Mr Boyd Douglas: Given that the Livestock and Meat Commission reports that the quality of beef cattle presented at meat plants has declined, how will the Minister target national envelope payments to encourage improvements in finished beef cattle and, indeed, in the cattle-breeding herd on the maternal side of the equation? I realise that she partly answered this question in her last response.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I should not like to pre-empt my final decision; I have not yet consulted with the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. I wish to give the Committee an opportunity to consider my suggestions and return its views to me for final adjustment before making any specific proposal or recommendation.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Natural Resource Rural Tourism Programme

Mr George Savage: 11. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if there is to be a process of consultation prior to the initiation of the natural resource rural tourism programme targeted at disadvantaged areas by December 2001, referred to in section 5.4.1 of the Programme for Government.
(AQO 426/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Madam Deputy Speaker — [Laughter] Excuse me — there has been a change of guard. I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not think you had had a sex change. I was about to say that we are getting through the questions very quickly today.
My Department has developed the natural resource rural tourism programme within the Peace II negotiations as part of the next rural development programme, which will run from 2001 to 2006. It is hoped that natural resource rural tourism will help to make up for some of the tourism infrastructure which would have developed over the past 30 years had it not been for the conflict. It is my intention to consult widely on all aspects of the programme, including aims, target areas, possible activities and delivery mechanisms. The consultation is likely to take place early in 2001.

Mr George Savage: Will the programme be on time?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I certainly hope so.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following my point of order at the end of Question Time last week under Standing Orders 19(5) and 19(6), I should like to point out that we are in contravention of 19(6).
Moreover, I want to ascertain whether Ms Morrice, the Deputy Speaker who was previously in the Chair, who gave a commitment that she would forward my concern to the Business Committee, has done so and when I shall receive a reply.

Sir John Gorman: The matter was discussed at the Business Committee, which came to the conclusion that there had been adequate time for questions.

Bonded Labour

Mr Eddie McGrady: I beg to move
That this Assembly is appalled by the United Nations estimate that some 20 million people are living in slavery around the world under the bonded-labour system; expresses its concern over the repeated failures of Governments such as those of Pakistan, India and Nepal to take adequate measures to eradicate the use of bonded labour in their countries; calls on the British and Irish Governments to work with their European Union partners to sponsor a resolution at the next United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning this practice; and urges the International Labour Organisation to ensure at its conference in June 2001 that independent and comprehensive surveys of the extent of bonded labour are carried out in countries where it persists.
The motion is probably the first to come before the Assembly on an international issue. I am rather pleased by that because while Assembly Members deal in great detail with our enormous problems in Northern Ireland, as elected representatives we have a common concern for the problems endemic in today’s world.
As individual Members, all of us are imbued with a sense of addressing human rights issues in the Third World and elsewhere. Those could include religious intolerance in east Timor and the Indian subcontinent, or the inequitable distribution of resources on the African subcontinent, which has led to the establishment of undue control by autocratic regimes and domination through individual citizens’ governance. In turn, these create, and are associated with, gross poverty and malnutrition. Bonded slavery is another issue that should demand our attention and requires political action. It represents the denial of freedom of individuals, and their control and domination by others.
Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
Notwithstanding that, there are an estimated 27 million slaves in the world today — more than twice the number taken from Africa during 400 years of the transatlantic slave trade. Today’s slaves are not bought and sold in the public auctions we see in romantic films about slavery. Their owners do not even hold legal title to them. Yet they are just as trapped, controlled and brutalised as the slaves we refer to in history.
One researcher has said:
"slavery is identified by an element of ownership or control over another’s life. It includes coercion and restriction of movement."
Last year, in Hull, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said:
"Slavery is hidden …Generally, people would not believe that it is possible under modern conditions. They would say ‘No, I think you are making it all up, because it is just too incredible.’ "
Lest anyone be in any doubt, let me say that slavery does exist today in many forms.
The word "slavery" covers a variety of human rights violations. In addition to "traditional" slavery and the slave trade, those abuses include: the sale of children; child prostitution; child pornography; the exploitation of child labour; the sexual mutilation of female children; the use of children in armed conflicts; debt bondage; the traffic of persons; the sale of human organs; the exploitation of prostitution; and many other practices, particularly under apartheid regimes or former colonial countries.
Bonded labour is one form of that slavery. Persons become bonded labourers simply by taking, or being tricked into taking, loans for as little as the cost of medicine for a sick child. They are then forced into working for little or no pay — often seven days a week — to repay that loan. The value of their work is invariably greater than the original sum borrowed. Unfortunately, in many cases the debt passes down through generations — from father to son, from mother to daughter. They receive basic food and shelter as so-called "payment" for their work. Little if any of it goes towards paying off the loan. They are all trapped in that terrible situation.
It is compounded by the fact that many women marry men who are attached to the bonded contract. Their worth is taken into account and they become part of the slave system. It is common to hear of women who are not bonded slaves yet who, because of their spouses’ situations, are sexually exploited by the landlords to whom the debts are owed.
Bonded labour is a form of enslavement. It is ancient and modern. In the Indian subcontinent it took root in the caste system, and it continues to flourish in feudal farming relationships. Following the abolition of slavery, debt bondage was used as a method of colonial labour recruitment for the supply of labour to plantations in Africa, the Caribbean, and South-East Asia.
Today, although slavery is illegal in most countries, it is in fact expanding through a combination of mass migration from poverty, the global demand for sources of cheap, expendable domestic labour, and the fact that many of those enslaved are unaware of their basic human worldwide rights. Poverty and the willingness of people to exploit others are the main reasons for the existence of bonded labour. When people have no land or are without the benefit of education, the need for cash to support their family forces them to sell their labour in times of emergency, such as when a family member needs medical help.
People end up pledging their labour, or even selling some of their children into slavery, in return for being able to pay off their debt. Today, a bonded labourer in India can be enslaved for a paltry £8 to £10 a day, and he will generate enormous profits per year for the bondholder. Slaves are thought to generate an annual profit of some £8 billion to £9 billion for their slaveholders, the so-called bond holders.
Many of those enslaved are usually unaware that they have any legal right to freedom. They are unable to take action to defend their rights because of the threat of violence. They may be bound by a sense of misplaced duty or by ignorance, and they become almost mentally conditioned to the concept and acceptability of slavery.
Bonded labour is particularly common in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Brazil and the Caribbean. In Brazil many thousands of unemployed men are tricked into bonded labour by promises of well-paid work. Verbal contracts are made and they are loaded onto trucks and transported thousands of miles away to work on estates in isolated areas, usually around the Amazon catchment area. These workers incur debt because they are charged for the cost of their tools, their accommodation and their transport. The food and drink they must buy are available only from the site, and therefore from the company shops, at highly inflated prices.
The men have their identity papers and work permits confiscated on arrival at the sites (which are, in fact, military camps surrounded by armed guards) preventing any hope — if there were the will and the ability — to escape. Since no one can work in Brazil without a work permit, the workers are loath to leave the site without any means of supporting their families.
The Brazilian Government have attempted to curb the practice by setting up a single mobile team to investigate complaints across the entire Amazon basin. Raids have been carried out on estates where bonded labourers are held; workers have been released, and some estates have been compulsorily purchased. But this small bureaucratic process fails totally to punish the estate owners who benefit from the bonded labour.
Research in the 1990s found that in Nepal between 70,000 and 100,000 Tharu — the indigenous people of the western region of Nepal — were being exploited in bonded labour. During the 1960s many Tharu were displaced from land which had not been legally registered. With little access to education or credit, and with wages as low as 13 rupees (about 15 pence) per day, many were forced to take loans and become bonded labourers. People ended up working 12 to 14 hours a day for little or no income on land that they had previously owned. That is the great tragedy of Nepal.
All forms of bonded labour are prohibited in India, yet bonded labour is widespread throughout the Indian subcontinent, as I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are aware from personal experience. Despite the existence of legislation designed to abolish bonded labour, it is estimated that 10 million people are trapped in debt bondage. The majority of these come from the Dalit (the untouchables) or the Adivashi (the indigenous communities) — the caste system. In the states of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, one in every five labourers is bonded. Twenty per cent are bonded in that so-called modern country.
In November 1999 the human rights organisation Volunteers for Social Justice identified dozens of people being held as bonded labourers in the state of Punjab. The organisation filed a number of test cases from two villages with the local district magistrates. The cases involved 11 women who took loans ranging from as little as £35 to £150 and were working as bonded labourers to pay off those loans.
The landlords responded to these cases by threatening the women and putting them on a "hit list". Unfortunately the police took no action and gave them no protection whatsoever. The magistrate to whom the original complaints were made, and who initiated an investigation into the use of bonded labour, was transferred from his post and out of the area. So there is Government complicity in acts of bonded labour. As from 17January 2000, no prosecutions have been initiated against the landlords, either for their illegal use of bonded labour or for their threats and intimidation against those who took cases to the proper authorities in a court of law.
We must always be mindful of the prevalence of bonded labour throughout the world and that many products in Great Britain and Ireland, North and South, may be tainted by that slave labour. Many products such as cocoa, steel, cotton and rugs involve bonded labour somewhere along the production line.
In 1998 the International Labour Organisation decided to focus its attention on principles known as "core labour standards", which were designed to protect fundamental rights at work. These standards seek principally to eliminate bonded labour, as well as child labour and discrimination in employment, while ensuring respect for the right of freedom of association and for the right of collective bargaining.
It is important that the Executive, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and this Assembly, elected by the people of Northern Ireland, focus on the international issue of bonded slavery. I hope that they will work with the British Government, the Irish Government and their European Union partners to sponsor a resolution at the next United Nations Commission on Human Rights session which would condemn this practice.
We should also urge the International Labour Organisation to ensure at its conference in June 2001 that independent and comprehensive surveys are carried out into the extent of bonded labour in those countries where it persists and that monitoring systems are established to record the number of freed bonded labourers and the numbers convicted for enslaving people in this manner. In that way we may get some measure of the progress that is being made — however minuscule. We would then know the dynamics of the process and what could be done to encourage and develop it. It is important that the International Labour Organisation ensure that all Governments allow independent assessments of the extent of bonded labour in their countries. All those involved in developing and enforcing laws on bonded labour must be properly trained in the fields of detection, investigation and prosecution.
There is enough worldwide evidence to demonstrate that slavery and like practices are vast and widespread. One figure tells its own grim story: as we speak, 100 million children are being exploited for their labour, according to recent estimates by the International Labour Organisation. It is important, therefore, that all Governments, including our own, act collectively to eliminate slavery and bonded labour. This Assembly and its Executive could play a central role on this major human rights issue.
I have tabled a similar motion in the House of Commons and it has already commanded the respect and support of a cross-community grouping there. I commend Third World organisations that have brought this matter to a world stage. Organisations such as Trócaire and Anti-Slavery International have actively campaigned for many years, without great support, to have bonded slavery eliminated.
I hope that this motion will receive cross-party support in the Assembly today, that it will be picked up by the Executive and that these motions will be carried forward nationally and internationally, not simply as placebos for conscience but as an active means of eradicating this horrible scourge that our so-called civilisation has tolerated for so long.

Sir John Gorman: Mr McGrady, who knows me well enough to know what my views are, will now take other Members’ views.

Mr Jim Shannon: People in Northern Ireland are renowned for their generosity. An American gentleman visiting here today said that he was impressed with how the people from Northern Ireland are forever putting their hands into their pockets financially. We do not mind helping charities, and we do not mind physically helping people who are in need. We have a commitment at both a financial and a physical level. That is why I am glad to have the opportunity to support this motion. It also gives the Assembly an opportunity to put on record its support for this motion.
We are all aware of the bonded labour system and slavery. Many of us are aware that people in Third World countries are trying to survive on very meagre wages. We are aware of some of the issues put forward by Mr McGrady, which are serious and concern us all as elected representatives, even though we live in Northern Ireland. We have concern for those who live in the Third World.
I wish to speak on a slightly different issue — fair trade. Perhaps the proposer will take it on board in his winding-up speech. We have probably all been circularised by War on Want on the need for substantial and suitable wages for those people who produce goods that we enjoy every day, and we should take that on board. When you had your cup of coffee or tea today, did you ask yourself where it came from? You probably did not because you have enough things on your mind, but the reality is that the person who produced that coffee or tea is receiving a very meagre price for their product. We pay for it, but those people do not receive the money that they should.
I once put down a question concerning this issue:
"To ask the Assembly Commission what plans it has to introduce the War on Want ‘Fair Trade’ campaign within Parliament Buildings or to encourage Members and staff to lend support to the campaign."
The Assembly Commission only replied last week, saying that it has
"just received a report [and] will be asking Mount Charles to develop proposals which promote the War on Want Fair Trade campaign with regard to the purchasing of products sold in Parliament Buildings."
As an Assembly, we have started to move in that direction. And that can lead places, with the support of the Members and staff here. We ask people for their support.
As stated in the motion, there are Governments in Third World countries such as India, Pakistan and Nepal — and many others, as Mr McGrady said — which have failed to address this issue despite repeated requests to do so. Other countries, in South America, Africa and the Far East, also have bonded labour and slavery. It is called "bonded labour", but it is slavery, with little or no respite for those caught up in it. Members are aware of the fair trade policies that councils throughout Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have supported. Elected representatives and public bodies have pledged to support the fair trade campaign.
We can have a tangible effect on Third World poverty. However, we must ensure that the money goes to the people who create the products, often in return for very small sums. There are approximately 10 million small- scale farmers who produce tea and coffee but who live in absolute poverty. Those small-scale farmers and producers do not receive a fair price for their products — just 10 pence out of every pound paid for their products goes to the farmers who grow the coffee beans and the tea leaves.
Governments in the countries in which those products are grown have made no effort to help those caught in the poverty trap. Rather, they encourage the unscrupulous middlemen who control the prices. It is the poor farmers who lose out on the money for their crops. If prices are bad or there is overproduction in a particular year, more often than not it is the farmers — the producers — who have to carry the can. They live in the worst conditions: inadequate housing; no clean water; and little or no health care or education for their children. They live in absolute poverty.
The House of Commons has adopted fair trade practice. The Assembly has an opportunity to move along that road. Many people want the profits from the sales of tea, coffee and other products to be given directly to the original producers. At its conference in June 2001 the International Labour Organisation should ensure that bad practice and direct exploitation are halted. The Governments of the countries concerned must react to the opinions of those who buy the product and the opinions of their own people.
This weekend the Government made a magnanimous statement, writing off some Third World debt. That was a significant step by the United Kingdom Government towards helping Third World countries. The United Kingdom Government can take such a significant step, but it is equally important that the Governments of Third World countries in which the exploitation, bonded labour and slavery take place also make a commitment. They cannot and should not ignore the plight of their own citizens.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Debt bondage is already outlawed under article 1 of the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. However, global economic forces dictate how economies in developing countries operate. We are appalled by the fact that such forces cause almost 44 million people to live as slaves, but we should not be surprised. Multinational companies demand cheap labour because of their obsession with profit. That obsession determines the fate of millions of children, women and men in so-called democracies. Using unpaid forced labour constitutes an excellent way to bolster economic profit. Governments in the First and Third Worlds support such companies and allow them to maintain cheap production costs in order to improve their competitiveness in the global market.
In countries such as Pakistan, India and Nepal families have little choice but to send their children into bonded labour or into armies or to sell their daughters as sex workers.
Human rights abusers act with impunity despite laws intended to abolish slavery. Government officials abuse their power to limit the judiciary and the press. Many Western Governments, including the British Government, sell arms to military forces and groups — arms used to enforce the abuses surrounding the issue of bonded labour.
A case in point is that of IqbalMasih, who was gunned down outside his grandmother’s house in Pakistan. The 13 year old had been bound out to a local carpet maker at the age of four. He worked 12hours a day tying knots at a carpet loom to pay off his father’s debt of $12. When he was 10 he escaped and joined the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, a human rights organisation founded in 1988 to put pressure on the Government of Pakistan to enforce existing laws prohibiting child and bonded labour.
Over the next few years Iqbal helped to free some 3,000children from bonded labour before he was murdered. His murder demands that all right-thinking people put an end to this terrible abuse. Children like Iqbal — modern-day slaves — are trapped in a system that forces them to work to pay off loans incurred by their families for basic necessities such as food and medical needs. They work unconditionally for their entire lives.
India alone has some 44million child workers under 13 years of age, both bonded and illegal, in the carpet- making industry. The children make products that many of us in the Western World use — silk, leather, matches, glass, gemstones, salt, soccer balls, sports clothes and fireworks.
Nike, the huge sporting company, is one of the greatest exploiters of child slavery. We should remember that when we are buying our Christmas presents of trainers, football boots, footballs and sporting clothes. Those who manufacture these products are the disposable people in a global market of fat-cat industrialists. There are also examples of bonded labour much closer to home than India and Pakistan. The plight of domestic servants employed by people working at the World Bank was highlighted last month on television. Also, children are working as nannies and domestic servants in the homes of the rich in England, Ireland and Europe.
Globalisation provides ever more opportunities to exploit people for profit. While we are on the issue of the rights of workers, we should also look at the wages paid to our disadvantaged communities in the North and the welfare-to-work schemes which lock our young people into conditions resembling slavery.
This is a well-intended motion, and I thank MrMcGrady for tabling it. However, we need to concentrate our efforts on what we can do to influence and change this deplorable situation. We must examine how we can support and promote fair trade here. More importantly, we need to be clear on the reasons for child slavery. Are our aims for economic development really so different here in the North, or anywhere else in Europe?
We need to highlight the work of Anti-Slavery International, global exchange movements and LASCO, an organisation that helps street children in Brazil. We need to eradicate the old forms of slavery and tackle the development of new forms of slavery, including the trafficking of people, and the related practices of debt bondages, forced prostitution and forced labour. These are all violations of the most basic human rights. Anti- Slavery International makes some specific recommendations which are included in MrMcGrady’s motion. The key themes, which have been mentioned by Jim Shannon, are to support fair trade, to examine the sourcing of goods for the Assembly, and to examine how the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment use the public purse. I support the motion.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate today, and I thank MrMcGrady for bringing this matter to the attention of the Assembly. This is not the first Third World issue that we have dealt with, and it reflects very well on the Assembly that we are indeed dealing with it.
In the motion Mr McGrady points out the problems of bonded or forced labour in Pakistan, India and Nepal. Incidents include child labour in Asia, which in India alone are currently estimated at between 115 million and 150 million.
We also have the problem of the indigenous population of Latin America, and Mr McGrady spoke about Brazil. Immigrants are coming into Western Europe and the United States, and they are now arriving on our doorstep in the Republic of Ireland, looking for some worthwhile employment, and we all know the problems that they face. Prison labour in China is another major issue that must be recognised.
The problem is not a new one but it is getting worse, and there have been major attempts to deal with it. Some measures are already in existence: the International Convention of 1926, which outlawed slavery, and the supplementary UN Convention on the abolition of slavery in 1962; the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which we as a body fully support; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, on which we as an Assembly have been working actively for some time. We also have the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which have been adopted by many countries but so far have not been adopted by the United Kingdom; the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles on multinational enterprises and social policy; the ILO Convention Number 29, which has an explicit ban on debt labour; and the ILO Convention Number 182, which eliminated child labour but which, unfortunately, has not been adopted by the United Kingdom. There is also the ILO’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
Attempts have been made to address this problem. Is working through the United Nations alone an appropriate way forward? Would it not be more appropriate to raise these issues with the World Trade Organisation rather than just with the United Nations? We should also advocate applying these criteria to the actions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Recently various international protests have taken place over world trade and world debt. On the question of world debt, I was particularly pleased over the weekend when John Prescott fully supported Jubilee 2000, which is aimed at cutting all world debt and which the Assembly has already been associated with.
The use of bonded and slave labour throughout the world also has an impact on the Northern Ireland economy. We can already see a serious decline in traditional industries, particularly textiles, because of production overseas by bonded and slave labour. This matter has much wider implications than those suggested in the motion, which I welcome and support. I suggest that we recommend to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it would be worth their while approaching the World Trade Organisation as well as the United Nations in an effort to have this matter dealt with.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I would like to focus on the issue of child bonded labour. The International Labour Organisation defines exploitative child labour as
"work that deprives children of their childhood and their dignity; which hampers their access to education and the acquisition of skills; and which is performed under conditions which are harmful to their health and their development."
Poverty and inequality create the conditions in which exploitation flourishes. While many of us would like to think that slavery was abolished almost 200 years ago, it still exists in many countries, albeit by another name — exploitation. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signatory states are obliged to promote child development and protect the rights of children in the community and family. A child is entitled to an adequate standard of living; physical and mental health; social security; education; and freedom from the dangers of sale, trafficking, sexual abuse and the illicit use of drugs. States are committed to protecting children from economic exploitation and work that may be harmful to their education, health and well-being.
Despite this, as my Colleague Mr McGrady said, many families in Third World countries are forced to send their children to work to help pay off loans subject to exorbitant rates of interest or to make them contribute in other ways towards the family’s income. Abuses faced by children in the community and the family range from ill-treatment in institutions to violence in families and from trafficking to child bonded labour — a system by which children are born or sold into virtual slavery to pay off family debt.
Children can often be seen working in dangerous and unhealthy environments such as factories, mines, brick kilns and brothels. Some are shackled to their machines to prevent escape, and others are beaten or raped by their employers. Even though many countries such as India have anti-slavery legislation, this abuse persists because the law is not enforced.
Rich landlords and employers can persuade the local police and magistrates to turn a blind eye to these illegal practices. Often a lack of education means that children and their families are unaware of their rights and are therefore forced to work for a pittance in appalling conditions. Employers prefer to use children for cheap labour because they are more docile than adult workers and can be forced to work in hazardous conditions. Many children are abandoned and forced to live on the streets, trying to eke out a living through slave labour or prostitution. They often fall foul of the law and suffer torture, ill-treatment and abuse at the hands of the police and state authorities.
There are no easy solutions to this issue. While we abhor the idea of child labour, many families are dependent for survival on the small income their children bring in, so effectively it would be disastrous to stop children working. We need to know what can be done to alleviate the poverty that necessitates children being forced into unsavoury work. Many organisations such as the International Labour Organisation, Oxfam and Save the Children are actively working to limit the type of work children do and to improve working conditions and reduce working hours so that children can continue their education. It is necessary to stamp out the illegal practices of many employers and to close brothels specialising in the use of child prostitutes. But this is a drop in the ocean, given that there are an estimated 120 million working children in the world, and possibly as many as 250 million. Punitive measures have proved unworkable and are difficult to enforce. In addition, the resultant increase in financial poverty would exacerbate the situation of the children and their families.
In the short term organisations and Governments throughout the world need to work to eradicate extreme forms of child exploitation and alleviate the plight of those who are suffering the most terrible degradation. An effective rehabilitation strategy is intrinsic to this work to avoid worsening the situation and driving many into further poverty, or even onto the streets, thus making them more vulnerable to exploitation, which would only perpetuate the problem.
Realistic time frames must be set and agreed with the countries involved to enable the regulation of working conditions for children. Age limits also need to be set to make it illegal for young children to be forced into work. Social and economic measures will have to be taken to tackle the root causes of poverty to enable the Governments concerned to deal with the illicit trade of children.
It is our duty to call on the British and Irish Governments and the European Union to demand of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that Governments in India, Pakistan, Nepal and South America enforce the eradication of child labour. I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I voice the support of the Women’s Coalition, which joins all others in favour of the motion, and I commend MrMcGrady for bringing the matter to the Assembly. The House must look outward, as well as inward, and address these serious issues, which affect the rest of the world.
I have listened intently to what has been said this afternoon and MrMcGrady’s point that this scourge on society in the Third World is very important. MrShannon raised the issue of ensuring that fair trade runs hand in hand with this. I hope that in his winding-up speech MrMcGrady will consider this and the importance of recognising the different ways in which we can help to stop this type of exploitation. It can be done on an individual basis by buying produce that is fairly traded or by calling on the United Nations and other bodies to act immediately to end the practice of bonded labour.
Education is also a major issue because bonded labour is often linked to illiteracy and the problems of people in Third World countries on the Indian subcontinent and in Africa and Latin America. People there are not aware of their rights and are, therefore, unable to take action to defend those rights. Even in Northern Ireland, a so-called educated society, there are many people who are not aware of their rights. Therefore, in Third World countries, and particularly in rural and isolated communities, it is vital to help to educate people to understand and to stand up for their rights.
We have described the problems associated with bonded labour and how they occur. For example, if there is a family event which has cultural and religious importance, such as a christening or a wedding, the head of the family will borrow money, usually from a landlord, and will sign a bond to work to repay that debt. Often people do not understand what they are signing. There are examples of people signing for their four-year-old children to work 12 hours a day to pay off a £12 debt. "Intolerable" is not even an appropriate word. It is an atrocious practice. It is a form of slavery and pure exploitation and it is the most vulnerable people who find themselves in these situations.
MrMcGrady raised the problems facing women and children. Landlords can sexually exploit women who become tied to these schemes. People get stuck, and they have nowhere to go. It happens mostly in isolated rural communities among people who are desperate and have very low self-esteem.
Education is one important way out. We must look at lack of education and the need to fill that educational gap. Putting children into labour at an early age denies them an education so this practice feeds on itself. The more children who are used in this way, the less educated they are and, as a result, the more they become tied into this practice.
There is also a need for us in Western society to educate our children and ourselves. As MaryNelis said, at Christmas the children want Nike. These products are considered to be something they need and want. They do not realise that children can be exploited through the making of many of these products. It is very important that our society is educated about such matters.
Anti-Slavery International has been urging the UN Commission to focus on several points. First, UN states should ratify the international instruments which prohibit the use of bonded labour and develop specific legislation to define and outlaw the offence of debt bondage, if they have not already done so. It is an unlawful activity, and something should be done about it. Secondly, states should be encouraged to carry out detailed regional surveys to help identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers. Thirdly, states should ensure that those responsible for keeping individuals in debt bondage are charged and prosecuted in accordance with domestic legislation. Finally, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should become the focal point for both the co-ordination of activities and the dissemination of information in the UN system on the suppression of contemporary forms of slavery. This should help to ensure that slavery issues, such as bonded labour, are mainstreamed throughout the UN system.
This is the development of civil society. Civil society groups need resources to develop and to be able to stand up for human rights on a global scale. It is an issue that affects the most vulnerable people in the chain. Most people think that slavery was abolished 200 years ago. There are no chains attached to the ankles and necks of the men, women and children who work in these terrible conditions. But there are chains. They may be invisible, but they are just as intolerable.
I support the motion.

Dr Joe Hendron: I wish to congratulate Mr McGrady for bringing this important motion before the Assembly. Certainly, other issues have been debated in the House in relation to the Third World. Nevertheless, this is a very important one.
About two years ago I was among a group invited to North Korea by Trócaire to make an assessment of the famine there and the terrible poverty and suffering. North Korea has a large degree of slavery and bonded labour. It was to be seen everywhere. In recent times there have been changes in that country because of its developing friendship with South Korea.
As a young lad I used to hear my grandfather talking about the "farmer’s boy", about whom many jokes were told. These were young boys from big families who had to wander off to other parts of the country for what was supposed to be employment. The term "farmer’s boy" meant that they slept in a shed and were given food and clothes. They had to pay that off by working some 12 hours a day. It is not so long since that practice existed in Ireland, both North and South.
Mr McGrady said that he has also put this motion forward to the House of Commons. I am very pleased to hear that there is already great support for it there. I am sure that he will, either directly or through the Executive, put the motion to the Scottish and Welsh legislatures, so that these islands, including the Republic of Ireland, can speak with one voice.
Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
There are at least 27 million slaves in the world today. That is more than twice the number of people taken from Africa during the 400-year transatlantic slave drive. Slaves today are not bought and sold at public auctions, nor do their owners hold legal title to them. Many people, as Mr McGrady said, get into debt at a time of family crisis. They end up pledging their labour, or even selling a child into slavery, in return for having their debts paid off. This does not happen only in India, Pakistan, South America or Mexico. We hear of street children who are taken away, sometimes murdered, sometimes brought into slave labour.
I am aware of the International Labour Organisation conference in June 2001. I know that organisations such as Trócaire are encouraging the principles that all Governments should allow independent assessment of the extent of bonded labour in their own countries, and that all those involved in developing and enforcing laws on bonded labour should be properly trained.
Mr McGrady’s purpose is to put pressure, through this Assembly, the House of Commons and other parts of these islands, on the European Union to sponsor a resolution at the United Nations for their High Commissioner for Human Rights to condemn the practice of bonded labour.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank all those who have participated in the debate. They obviously have a deep knowledge of all aspects of the problem of bonded labour. Their detailed knowledge indicates a concern to try, in some way, to light that proverbial candle. We in this Assembly must spread some light, an ever-increasing incandescence, throughout the rest of Europe and the world. That may sound presumptuous, but I am convinced that we have a voice on the world stage. In many other areas we have shown the ability to influence world opinion and there is no reason why, from this small beginning today, all the parties united together cannot carry this forward onto the larger stage and with greater effectiveness. I very much appreciate the contributions, which showed a great depth of knowledge not only about bonded labour but also of the ramifications which created it and result from it. They are myriad, stretching over continents.
I thank Mr Shannon for his participation and for drawing attention to other diverse aspects of bonded labour, the effects of fair trade, which were also referred to by Ms Morrice. He referred to the plight of small farmers who are deprived of a reasonable income for many of their products, which we enjoy at little cost in relation to our level of income. They are suffering as a result of our luxury lifestyles. He also rightly referred to the horrendous consequences of world debt, created by the exploitation of the native habitats, cultures and tribes to the point of extinction, simply to obtain greater profits for the multinationals.
That leads me to what Mrs Nelis said about multinationals and their responsibility for many of the problems that have been imposed on numerous communities throughout the world. There is the exploitation of their natural resources, the destruction of their natural way of life and of their harmony with nature. These communities are at one with nature, while we are destroying the goose that lays the golden egg for our current luxurious standard of living. Mrs Nelis went on to talk about the responsibilities of multinationals. Those responsibilities are evident in many of our luxuries, as well as in the cheap labour practices adopted by multinationals in the manufacture of many commonplace products that we use on a daily basis.
The Member referred to the ramifications of this tragedy — the sale of arms, the murders of young children and many other facets of international trade. She is absolutely right. Action is required — not words. She made the point that we need to take action here as well as abroad. We cannot, and must not, allow ourselves to be hypocritical in our approach to this problem. We must take the appropriate actions here that are on a par with the exploitation taking place abroad.
Mr Neeson made a valuable contribution in relation to how we perceive and treat immigrants. He drew a parallel between the disregard we can sometimes have for those of other cultures that come among us — that, in a sense, can explain but not forgive the cold approach we sometimes have — and the lack of concern for our fellow human beings in many other areas. As he said, it is a matter of international social policy, and I agree that such a policy does not currently exist. Token gestures are being made in different directions at different times, but there is no international thrust across the social strata that create these problems — not only bonded labour but also others that I have referred to. I also agree with Mr Neeson that the issue should be promoted not only on the floor of the United Nations but also at the World Trade Organisation.
My Colleague Patricia Lewsley gave a detailed definition of the horrible aspects of child abuse — the poor factory conditions, the long hours and the arduous and hazardous conditions under which these young people have to work from an early age. She mentioned rehabilitation; once this issue has been addressed, it cannot be let go. These people must be taken out of their bonded labour and put into rehabilitation to prevent them falling into the same trap all over again. Rehabilitation equals prevention, and prevention is much better than cure. That is a very important point.
Ms Jane Morrice touched on the question of the international aspects of fair trading. If the general public or any Assembly Member were to examine the details of what is happening in some countries and the activities of the multinationals (funded by the World Bank) they would be absolutely horrified to see the consequences on indigenous peoples and customs.
Education is important and must be discussed because people are unaware of their rights. Ms Morrice emphasised the need for education in this and other areas. She stated that those working under a bonded slavery system with its associated horrors should be educated, but people in Western society should also be educated as to how they create and contribute towards bonded labour. I agree that a great deal of research and action will have to be taken to explain, propagandise and get the message across that we can no longer tolerate such conditions.
Dr Hendron spoke of his experiences in North Korea. I know that he was shocked by the conditions he found there. For a long time North Korea was hidden behind an information curtain from which little emerged. I remember Germans standing on the international zone between North and South Korea. The international forces told me that in winter soldiers from the North Korean army foraged in the countryside for basic food, looking for rough grazing and berries to sustain them. If these were the sort of conditions the army had to endure, what of the ordinary people? I agree that you can cast your eye over international scenes, you can tut-tut and pooh-pooh, but forget what has happened in your own community.
He referred to the common practice of the "farmer’s boy". I am too young to remember that, but I am sure that he does. [Laughter] I have heard of it and read about it in the history books. Unless society is careful, it can perpetrate such injustices, because if something is a custom, it is not noticed or criticised officially.
I agree that this debate and the action that we hope will result must be broadcast throughout Europe. We must begin with Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Dáil Éireann as a way of spearheading a concerted and universal — or at least Western European — thrust to address these issues.
Once again I thank the Members for their participation. They all indicated support for the motion, and I have not heard any voice in opposition. I thank them for their wealth of knowledge and their eloquence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly is appalled by the United Nations estimate that some 20 million people are living in slavery around the world under the bonded-labour system; expresses its concern over the repeated failures of Governments such as those of Pakistan, India and Nepal to take adequate measures to eradicate the use of bonded labour in their countries; calls on the British and Irish Governments to work with their European Union partners to sponsor a resolution at the next United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning this practice; and urges the International Labour Organisation to ensure at its conference in June 2001 that independent and comprehensive surveys of the extent of bonded labour are carried out in countries where it persists.
Adjourned at 5.16 pm.